LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Chap. Copyright 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



WHIST 



AMERICAN LEADS AND 
THEIR HISTORY 

WITH A REVIEW OF 

LATER INNOVATIONS 
IN THE GAME 

BY / 

NICHOLAS BROWSE TRIST 



NEW YORK AND LONDON 
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS 

1900 

L- 



TWO COPIES RECEIVEI. , 



Library of QGggttHi 
Office of tha 

FED 1 - 1900 

Register of Copyrlg&,t^ 



54268 



Copyright, 1900, by Nicholas Browse Trist. 



^ '^^'^ ^^^^^ reserved. 



CONTENTS 



The old-fashioned player Page 4 

First whist-case sent to London Field 8 

Proctor's opinion of whist as an intellectual pur- 
suit 13 

Phiys supposed to be new, date back lo 1742 or 

earlier 16, 56, 57 

Return leads, when first introduced 17 

Origin of short whist 17 

Call for trumps introduced 18 

''Little Whist School" 19 

Dr. William Pole asks for model games of whist 23 

Henry Jones responds 22 

"Cavendish " ventures into print 23 

Pole's fundamental theory of the game 25 

Protective discard from strength 25 

Penultimate lead 26 

Echo of the call. 26 

Change in second lead from ace, queen, knave, 

more than four in suit 26 

Ante-penultimate lead 28 

Reverse discard 29 

" Change-your-suit " signal 29, 92 



Contents 



Play of second hand with king and a small 

card Page 30, 65 

American Leads — Maxims 31 

Lead of lowest of a four-card suit — example. ... 33 

Underlying principle of First Maxim 34 

Second Maxim explained 36 

Third Maxim explained. 38 

History of American Leads begun 43 

Third Maxim the first one elaborated 44 

Application of whist principles not readily per- 
ceived 45 

Bearing of lead of lowest of four-card suit, on 

play of second hand, overlooked 46 

Lead of original fourth-best after ace, next de- 
veloped 47 

Fourth-best wheo suit is opened with low card. 48 
ludepeodently fornuilated b}^ " Cavendish . . . 48 
Claim made for General Drayson as originator of 

fourth-best lead examined, 49 

"Cavendish" comes out in Field in favor of 

American Leads 50 

J\[ogul," "Pembridge, "and others attack Amer- 
ican Leads 52 

Cavendish" continues to champion them 52 

Title-page motto on pamphlet entitled "The 

American Lead Controversy" 53 

Result of Dr. Pole's analysis of the case of cov- 
ering honor second hand 54 

Analj^sis of play of third hand by "Cavendish" 

— unblocking play 54 

Hoyle gives an example of unblocking 56 

The sub-echo 57 

Lead of knave from head of sequence aban- 
doned 59 

iv 



Contents 



Lead of queen wilh king, more than four in suit, 

Paire 59 

Lead of queen with ace, king, more than four in 

suit 61 

Lead of knave with ace, king, queen, more than 

four in suit 61 

Change in Second Maxim made necessary by 

new lead of queen 61 

The eleven rule 63 

American Leads simplified 66 

System as a whole should be called "Anglo- 
American Leads " 68 

Second Maxim as originally formulated at- 
tacked 69 

Author's reasons for adhering to it 72 

Supported by Mr. C. D. P. Hamilton 76 

Tendency of improvement in whist 77 

American people take up the game 81 

Trumps showing play 84 

Irregular lead as a call for trumps through a 

turned-up honor 85 

Echoing with high indifferent cards. 87 

The three-trumps echo 88 

The discard 95 

The rotary discard. , 97 

**Force-me and don't-force-me " discard 101 

Street attachment 103 

Fourth-best lead from ace, five in suit 105 

Comments of Mr. Whitfeld on the result of his 

analysis of that lead 106 

Author's remarks on same. . . 109 

Lead from top-of-nothing " 115 

Lead of ten from queen, knave, ten 116 

Lead of fourth -best from king, knave, ten 117 

V 



Contents 



Proposed change of lead from ace, king, queen, 

knave, five or more in suit Page 121 

New systems 123 

Howell sy stem - 124 

Short-suit system 124 

Short-suit game not sound 129 

Long-suit scientific game compared with others. 131 

Playing to the score 135 

Example by James Clay 136 

Advice to beginners 139 

Effects of multiplicity of systems 141 

Anglo-American Leads, in detail. 145 

Number of leads from each card. 155 

Concluding remarks 158 



part ir 



Tlie History of American Leads, and, in- 
cidentally, the Progress of Whist 
from the days of Hoyle to 
the year 1892 



Whist 



WHAT ! another work on Whist to 
study? Is^o, my disheartened, 
book -ridden learner: only a 
fra^j^ment of AVhist historv, of which I 
happen to know something, for I propose 
to tell you about American Leads, trust- 
ing that my narrative will prove inter- 
esting, and, mayhap, instructive too. 

About thirty years ago I began to play 
whist with some friends. AVe had no book 
to guide us; in fact, our ignorance was 
such that, w^ith the exception of the im- 
mortal Hoyle, we did not know even the 
names of any w^riters on the game. So 
we began by playing as best we could, 
using what common -sense and judgment 
we possessed, fancying all the w^hile that 
we were playing a pretty good game of 

3 



Whist 

whist. Xow you know what kind of a 
game that is, for, although the number is 
gradually diminishing, you still frequent- 
ly meet the old-fashioned, common-sense 
player, as he complacently styles himself, 
who scorns the books and holds in con- 
tempt the machine players/' and he 
often proves the sincerit}" of his opinion 
by being ready to back up with money 
his game against the book game. You 
find, not infrequently, that he has a good 
memor\^, and is not lacking in perception; 
he plays indifferently the lowest or high- 
est of a sequence, and, excepting from 
some combinations of high cards, opens 
everv suit from the middle, so that no 
small card of the adversaries may make. 
His lead of predilection, however, is tlie 
singleton, and his countenance fairly 
beams with satisfaction when he thereb}^ 
succeeds in getting in a little trump ; but 
the happiest moment of his whist life is, 
when, at the close of the hand, he can 
triumphantly spread out a handful of 
trumps, which he has carefully bottled up, 
4 



Whist 



for apparently no other purpose than to 
bring about this dazzling finale^ quite un- 
mindful of the fact that he often entombs 
one or more good cards of his partner's, 
which would have made separately, had 
he extracted the adversaries' trumps early 
in the hand. 

Our plaj^ers found out in a very short 
time that the establishing of a long suit, 
with a view of brino^-ino- in its remnant 
after exhausting the trumps of the oppo- 
nents, was one of t'he prime factors of suc- 
cess at whist, and the singleton lead was 
relegated to the second rank. This was a 
long stride in the right direction ; but, in 
other respects, our play was such as would 
have maddened the experts of to-day in 
any attempts to read oar hands. In its 
emotional aspect, that kind of game may 
be said to have a certain advantage over 
the scientific one, for, in the latter, as each 
suit is gradually developed, you can read 
the impending doom in the silent language 
of the cards, and black care sits on your 
brow to the end of tlie hand; while in 



Whist 



the haphazard contest, hope springs in 
your breast, if not eternal, at least to 
the close of the play, for the position of 
the cards not being known with an}" de- 
gree of certainty, you trust that some 
of them may turn up in your partner's 
hand and convert threatened defeat into 
victor3\ 

We went on in this way for some time, 
and perhaps in the course of years we 
might have gradually worked out some of 
the elementary rules of play, as now un- 
derstood, when one day an Irish gentle- 
man, who had been overlooking our game 
and' probably thought it deserving of en- 
couragement, sent me a little book, enti- 
tled The Laws and Practice of Whist^ by 
" Coelebs " (Carlyon). This proved a reve- 
lation to us. From that moment to learn 
scientific AYliist became our aim, so we or- 
dered several copies of that little book; on 
opening the packet, when received from a 
IsTew York dealer, we found it to con- 
tain not ^' Coelebs,'' which could not be 
o"ot in that citv, but Cavendish,'' fifth 

6 



Whist 



edition, substituted by the bookseller on his 
own responsibility. Upon a comparison 
of the two works, we soon discovered that 
we were the gainers by the exchange, and 
Ave went to work to stud}^ and play the 
game in the illuminating rays of the new 
light shed upon it by the brilliant mind of 
the author. And well did it repay us, for 
I vividly remember to this da}^ the great 
pleasure experienced as the beauties of the 
scientific game gradually unfolded them- 
selves, and the satisfaction felt, as practice 
demonstrated the soundness of rules of 
pla}", based on certain correct principles so 
clearly and concisely laid down by Henrj^ 
Jones, who is so well known wherever 
Whist is played, under his pseudonym of 
" Cavendish." 

This book acquaintance with " Caven- 
dish" was supplemented some j^ears later 
by correspondence, which had its origin 
through my sending to the London Field 
a Whist case, based on actual play, in 
which the position of the cards was as fol- 
lows : 

7 



Whist 



Kg., 10 C 

Kn., 8, 6, 5. .H 



B 



9, Y, 3... 

T 

8, V 



H 
.S 
D 



Y 



A 



Z 



9 C 

Q, 10, 2. .H 

10, 6 S 



Ace, Kg., 4. .II 

Kn., 8 S 

9 D 



Clubs trumps. Heart suit not opened. 
Position of the other cards known, except 
that A and B do not know which of Y 
and Z holds two spades. A and B must 
take every trick to save and win game. 

A led the nine of diamonds. B must 
trump to prevent Z from making his nine; 
and, for the purpose of extracting it, Z, 
needing but one trick to save and win 
game, sees that his best chance of doing 
this is to retain the minor tenace in spades 
and a double guard to his queen of hearts ; 
and knowing, besides, that his trump Avill 
be drawn, throws it to the trick. This 
play proclaims the holding of the small 
spade, the position of w^hich was doubtful, 



Whist 



and B can now read Z's reasons for un- 
der-trumping ; therefore he forces the dis- 
card which Z is trvino; to avoid by leadino; 
the king of trumps. Z discards the two 
of hearts, A the eight of spades, and Y 
the seven of spades. B now leads the 
five of hearts, and A B take all six tricks. 
You will note here that B does not follow 
the rule to treat a long suit as a short one 
when it cannot go round more than three 
times. Had he pla3"ed the knave of hearts 
in accordance with it, he would have lost 
the game, for Z covers with queen and 
the nine makes in Y's hand ; but B saw 
that to win the game his partner must 
hold ace of hearts, with the king or queen. 
In either case he will capture the singly 
guarded honor, which is assumed to be held 
by Z — for if Y has it the game is lost; 
therefore B properl}" led the small heart, 
reserving the knave to take the third trick. 

This endinc; I have oiven to mv readers 
not only because it paved the way to 
American Leads by inaugurating a corre- 
spondence with Cavendish," but also for 
9 



Whist 



the reason that it is interesting, contain- 
ing, as it does, so many illustrative points: 
1st, the trumping of partner's trick by B; 
2d, the under-trumping by Z as the best 
chance of winning ; 3d, the lead of the 
thirteenth trump to force a discard ; 4th, 
the lead of the small heart by B, contrarj^- 
to rule; and 5th, playing to the score; 
otherwise B might be deterred from lead- 
ing the last trump lest Y make his eight 
of diamonds, as the chances are that he 
holds a card of entry in hearts. The case 
was published in the Fields with approv- 
ing remarks b\^ ''Cavendish," the card 
editor of that paper. From this occur- 
rence dates the beginning of a correspond- 
ence between us which was kept up, with 
but little intermission, np to the time of 
his death, and which has proved a source 
of much pleasure and profit to me. 

After this I occasionally contributed to 
the Field an illustrative hand. In one of 
them, published in 1883, the position of 
the cards, after the seventh trick, was as 
follows : 

10 



Whist 



4 II 

xVce, 10, 8, 3. .D 



Kn., 



10 


II 




13 




9, Y... 


D 

C 


Y 


A 


z 






8 




H 






4, 2 




D 






Kn., 


10, 7. 


. . C 



Kg., V, 
Kn. . . 



.II 
.S 



Z turned up the knave of diamonds. 
The odd trick wins the game for either 
side. A B have scored two tricks and 
Y Z, five. 

In the beginning of the plaj^ B called 
for trumps, to which A responded by lead- 
ing the six, Y playing the five, B the 
queen, and Z the knave. Barring false 
cards, B is marked w^ith the three and Z 
has no more. B did not continue the 
trumps, but returned his partners club 
suit, taken w^ith the queen by Z, who then 
w^on the next trick with the queen of 
spades, which brings us to the above 
position. Z follows with the king of 
11 



Whist 



hearts, securing the sixth trick for his side, 
and leads a small heart. A and B are now 
in a desperate strait, for they must take 
all the remaining tricks to save and win 
game, against the king of trumps doubly 
guarded in Y's hand. A trumps the small 
heart with the four, although he holds the 
two also; it looks as if it made no differ- 
ence, but in doing so A makes a beautiful 
play. He reasons in this way: ''My part- 
ner must hold the ace of trumps or the 
game is lost; he cannot have with it the 
king and ten, or he would have drawn Y's 
trumps ; he also does not hold ace, king, 
nine, else he would have continued with 
the king and waited for a lead of trumps 
from me; therefore it is necessary that I 
lead twice through Y as the onW chance 
of winning; but B has one trump too many 
for that scheme to succeed, and he must 
get rid of the superfluous one on this trick 
and still leave me in the lead, and this he 
cannot do if I trump with the two." B 
rises to the situation and under- trumps 
with the three. A then leads the two of 



12 



Whist 



trumpSj ^vhicb B takes with the eight, 
plaj^s the ckib, taken by A, who leads 
another club, and B captnres the nine and 
king of trumps. It is to be observed that 
Z would have won the game by playing 
the knave of spades at the ninth trick, 
when Y must not over-trumjD A, but should 
discard his club ; but it is possible that Y 
has no other heart, and Z tries to force 
him in that suit as the best chance of 
winning. 

The foregoing hand was published, not 
to illustrate the grand coup played by B, 
for that has been done too often to be re- 
peated, but to show the masterlj^ play of 
A in trumping with the four. "Caven- 
dish" was so well pleased with it, that he 
embodied it in the next edition of his well- 
known work on AYhist. Still, I would not 
have produced it here were it not for the 
fact that it gave to the late Eichard A. 
Proctor, the eminent astronomer and whist 
author, the opportunity to express the 
high opinion in which he held the game 
of whist as an intellectual pursuit. After 

13 



Whist 



publishing the hand in Knowledge^ of 
which he was the editor, when outlining 
the features which he intended to make 
prominent in the volume of that scientific 
weekly about to begin with the new year, 
he said: The papers on chess and whist 
will be continued as before. We continue 
to regard whist, as well as chess, as a sci- 
entific game, though some correspondents, 
who apparently know little of the game 
and nothing of its real charms, objurgate 
us for allowing what they call a mere 
chance game to be dealt with in these col- 
umns. We invite those who so view whist 
to study the game which adorns our whist 
column this week, and to consider whether 
an average problem in mathematics would 
more effectually test the powers of combi- 
nation than the problem which was pre- 
sented to all four pla3^ers at the close of 
this remarkable game." 

It was about this time that I wrote to 
"Cavendish" a letter containing the germ 
of one branch of American Leads. Before 
giving their history, I deem it expedient 
' 14 



Whist 

to trace first, as evolved through years of 
experience and practice, certain well-recog- 
nized principles of the game on which 
those leads are based. In doing so, I will 
not confine mvself to the examination 
of those principles bearing more directly 
on American Leads, but propose to note 
also, in a cursory manner and chiefly 
from a chronological point of view, the 
other main developments of the game, 
which precedecl and followed the intro- 
duction of American Leads up to the year 
1892. 

The great majority of players have 
rather confused ideas as to the time when 
some of its most important features were 
incorporated into the game. They are 
generally under the impression that all 
that is good in whist has been intro- 
duced into it within comparatively modern 
times. They will, therefore, be surprised 
to learn that a good many of the rules as 
laid down by Hojle, more than a century 
and a half ago, are now followed by them 
in their daily practice. I have more than 

15 



Whist 

once heard advanced pla3^ers say to a be- 
ginner: "With king, queen, knave, and 
two or more small cards, the modern rule 
is to lead the knave, and not the king, as 
3^ou did"; little suspecting that Hoyle 
gave the same advice in the following 
words : If you have a sequence of king, 
queen, knave, and two small ones, whether 
you are strong in trumps or not, it is the 
best play to begin ^vith the knave, because 
by getting the ace out of an\^ hand you 
make room for the whole suit." Particu- 
lar attention has been drawn to this lead 
for the reason that on the principle 
w^hich underlies it is based one division 
of American Leads, as will be seen herein- 
after. This and other still practised rules 
of play, given by Hoyle in his treatise 
published in 1742, doubtless came into ex- 
istence some years anterior to that date; 
for it is safe to assume that, if not all, at 
least the greater part of his w^ork is but a 
compilation of the principles and rules of 
play as he found them understood and 
practised by Lord Folkestone and other 
16 



Whist 



fine players of bis day. 'We are, therefore, 
now following some orders of pla}^ formu- 
lated at least one hundred and seventy 
years ago. 

The next advance was the introduction 
of that important rule which directs that, 
in returning your partner's lead, you 
should play the higher card, having but 
two remaining, and the lowest, having 
three. It is not known when this rule 
was first introduced into the game, but it 
found its way into print about 1770, in 
the following words : In returning your 
partner's lead, play the best you have when 
you hold but three originally" (Payne's 
Maxims). Mathews gives the rule, some- 
what amplified, in his Advice to the Young 
Whist Playei\ published about 1805. 

A few years prior to this last date, short 
whist came into existence by the points of 
the game being reduced from ten to five 
and the calling of honors abolished. Mr. 
Clay, in his delightful little work on Whist 
— which should be in the hands of every 
learner — gives an account of how this oc- 

B IT 



Whist 



curred. He says that ''Lord Peterbor- 
ough having one night lost a large sum 
of money, the friends with whom he was 
playing proposed to make the game five 
points, instead of ten, in order to give 
the loser a chance of recovering his loss. 
The new game was found to be so livel}^, 
and money changed hands with such ra- 
pidit3\ that these gentlemen and their 
friends, all leading members of the clubs 
of the day, continued to play it." 

The next important development was 
the call for trumps. It was first intro- 
duced some sixty 3'ears ago at " Gra- 
ham's," a great card club in London, but 
which Avas dissolved a little later. Lord 
Henry Bentinck, a player of high repute, 
is credited with its i^ivention. He is said 
to have afterwards bitterly regretted his 
ingenuity, which had deprived him of 
much of the advantage which he derived 
from his superior play by making the 
game easier for the moderate player. Al- 
though it is admitted that the call for 
trumps was naturally evolved from cor- 
18 



Whist 



rect lines of pla-y, yet it is considered by 
the best authorities to be no improve- 
ment; but it is now a permanent feature 
of the game, and has to be dealt with as 
such. One thing, however, is certain — it 
has added much interest to the game for 
the beginner. 

We now come to an event in the his- 
tory of whist, apparently insignificant, but 
which was fraught with the future welfare 
of the game, for it led to the introduction 
of ''Cavendish^'' into the whist world, the 
man to whom Whist owes more for its ad- 
vancement than to an}^ other since the 
days of Hoyle. 

This event was the coming together of 
the '*knot of young men" who pla3^ed 
whist at Cambridge, and afterwards in 
London, between 1850 and 1S60, referred 
to b}^ Dr. William Pole in the introduc- 
tion to his PliilosopJiij of Whist, 

The facts concerning this " Little Whist 
School,'' so far as I have been able to as- 
certain them, are, that shortly after 1850 
Mr. Daniel Jones, brother of Cavendish," 

19 



Whist 

and others, some of whom are mentioned 
below, used to play whist at Cambridge 
in much the same way as other young 
men. It seems that, contrar}^ to the gen- 
eral impression, Mr. Henry Jones was not 
of the party, as he was then pursuing 
his medical studies at St. Bartholomew's 
Hospital, in London. After these gentle- 
men had taken their degrees, they and 
" Cavendish used to meet in London 
about the year ISSi. The regular players 
were Mr. Edward Wilson, Mr. W. Dundas 
Gardiner, Mr. Daniel Jones, and Mr. 
Henry Jones. Although others used to 
join in the play at times, the four named 
formed the backbone of the Little 
School.*' "^Yhen these four met thev 
used to play every hand through to the 
end for the sake of science, and also for 
the purpose of making certain calcula- 
tions. They, moreover, wrote down in- 
teresting hands, of which more anon. It 
was in the nature of things that these 
four whist enthusiasts, who w^ere young 
men of considerable ability," as Dr. 
20 



Whist 



Pole calls them, should argue, and that 
they should not always agree. They had 
the advantage over most beginners of be- 
ing able to refer disputed points to the 
late James Clay, then the acknowledged 
authority on w^hist. The cases were w^rit- 
ten down and submitted to Mr. Clay 
through the medium of Mr. Henry Der- 
viche Jones, F.R.C.S., father of Caven- 
dish," who happened at that time to be 
chairman of the Portland Club, the head- 
quarters of English Whist, where he often 
met Mr. Clay. 

About 1860 the " Little School" ceased 
to meet, owing to circumstances over 
which the members had no control. A 
number of manuscripts which had accu- 
mulated were thrown into a drawer, and 
there they would probably have remained 
to this day but for the following accident: 

In Macmillan'^s Magazine of December, 
1861, appeared an article, " Games at 
Cards for the Coming Winter." It was 
signed "W. P." In the course of the ar- 
ticle the following passage occurred : It 

21 



Whist 



would be a great boon if some good au- 
thority would publish a set of model 
games of whist with explanatory remarks, 
such as are found so useful in chess, for 
example." 

The future " Cavendish having read 
this article, wrote to "^Y, P." that he 
happened to have a number of whist hands 
in manuscript, and should be happy to 
lend them to him. He received a reply 
from no less a person than Dr. William 
Pole, F.K.S., etc., saying that he should 
like to see the hands. 

Before forwarding, " Cavendish" thought 
he Avould just read the hands over. He 
found the ''Little School" had taken so 
much for granted that the MSS. would 
probably be unintelligible to Dr. Pole. 
Thus, if A led from his strong suit, no re- 
mark was made about it; or, if B, when 
returning his partner's lead, and holding 
the three and the two, returned the three 
in preference to the two, no reason was 
given for it. So " Cavendish " began to 
rewrite. In order to avoid repetition, he 
22 



Whist 



erected some of the instructions into prin- 
ciples, to which he referred as occasion 
required. He also added a few element- 
ary reasons for each line of play. Dr. 
Pole examined the MS., and wrote to the 
effect that its contents Avere a revelation 
to him, and that Jones ought to publish; 
so as Cavendish," the name of his then 
club, he ventured into print, in 1862, with 
a modest 250 copies. The rest every whist 
player knows; his success was great ; and 
I have his authority to say that by 1891 he 
had disposed of 59,000 copies of his Laws 
and Principles of Whist. Since that date 
he must have sold several thousands more. 
So much for an accident. But to return 
to the " Little School." 

It was first so christened by a writer in 
the Quarterly Review of January, 1871. 
Then a storm arose. The late Abraham 
Hayward wrote to the London Horning 
Post to say that none of the most cele- 
brated players of the day were aware of 
the existence of this school. That was 
not surprising, considering that the play- 
23 



Whist 



ers named had no idea the}^ formed a 
school until after the publication of the 
Quarterly^ when they ''awoke and found 
themselves famous." Hayward added, in 
Xh^Post: ''Did these young men originate 
or elaborate or compass anything, or did 
they merely arrange what was well known 
and procurable before?" To this "Caven- 
dish" replied : " What I claim for the Lit- 
tle School is tlaat in our book we gave for 
the first time the reasoning on which the 
principles of whist-play are based, logical- 
ly and completely." It does not appear 
that the "Little School" oriHnated anv 
alterations worthy of record. These came 
later, as we shall see further on. 

In consequence, doubtless, of the repu- 
tation achieved by him through his book, 
"Cavendish" was given charge of the 
card department of the London Field in 
December, 1862. This was a most fortu- 
nate occurrence, as it contributed not a 
little to the subsequent unity and sta- 
bility of the game, by making the Field 
the medium through which all improve- 
24 



Whist 



ments or alterations are suggested, dis- 
cussedj adopted, or rejected, as the case 
may be. 

But to return to the progress of Whist. 

In 1864 Dr. "WilHam Pole published an 
essay on the " Theory of the Modern 
Scientific Game of Whist," as a second 
part to the sixteenth edition of the well- 
known work, Short Whist^ hj Major A.^ 
in which he enunciated the fundamental 
theory of the modern scientific game to 
be — That the hands of the two partners 
shall not be played singly and indepen- 
dently, but shall be combined and treated 
as one. And that to carry out most effec- 
tually this principle of combination each 
partner shall adopt the long -suit system 
as the general basis of his play." 

That this theory is sound is proved by 
the fact that it regulates the play of the 
great majority of players to this day. 

The earliest of the cases elaborated, 
after the appearance of Cavendish on 
Whist, was the protective discard from 
strength. This was first noticed in the 

25 



Whist 



Field of November 30, 186 7, and ex- 
plained in the eighth edition, 1868. The 
kernel of this is contained in the advice 
given by Mathews : If weak in trumps, 
keep guard on your adversary's suits; if 
strong, thro\y away from them.'' 

The next advance was the penultimate 
lead from suits of more than five cards 
{Fields October 12 and 26 and Novem- 
ber 2, 1872), followed b}^ the echo of the 
call (same paper, July 25, 1871). These 
are duly noted in the tenth edition of 
Cavendish onWhist^ dated June, 1871. 

On September 11 and October 16, 1875, 
were published in the Field two articles 
b}^ Cavendish " on leads. They are, to 
my mind, so important as forerunners of 
the present system of American Leads, 
showing what was then ''in the air," as it 
has since been called, that I quote from 
them at length. 

''Cavendish" says: '*' From ace, queen, 
knave, and two or more small ones, the 
proper lead is ace, then knave, instead of 
the usual ace, then queen ; because, w4th 

26 



Whist 



five of the suit, 3^ou want partner, if he 
held king and two small ones originally, 
to put his king on second round." He 
also says : " The usual lead from ace, 
queen, knave, ten, is ace, then queen. 
This, however, is wrong, as it is not the 
game for partner to put king on queen 
led after ace, he having king and two 
small ones origuially. He thereby blocks 
the suit on the third round. The proper 
lead from ace, queen, knave, ten, with or 
without small ones, is ace, then ten. . . . 
The partner of the plaj^er who leads ace, 
then ten, should put the king on the ten — 
in plain suits — if he had three originall}^, 
but not if he had four. Hence . . . the 
third player's hand can be counted when 
he has the king." 

" Cavendish " then proceeded to show 
that, by a parity of reasoning, the proper 
lead from the queen, knave, ten combina- 
tion is queen, then knave, ATith four in 
suit; and queen, then ten, with more than 
four. 

These leads were evidently so correct in 
27 



Whist 



principle that they found immediate fa- 
vor. The}^ are introduced in the eleventh 
edition of Cavendish on Whist, 1ST6. The 
lead from ace, queen, knave, ten combi- 
nation has, however, been since altered 
in one respect : with one or more small 
cards, the ten is ignored and the knave is 
led after the ace, the same as from ace, 
queen, knave, tw^o or more small ones. 

From the foregoing it would appear 
that a great whist advance was made be- 
tween the years 1S64 and 1876. 

In 1ST9, Colonel, now General, A. W. 
Drayson, in his Art of Practical Whist — 
one of the most interesting books on the 
game — recommended the lead of the ante- 
penultimate from a suit of six cards. He 
furthermore suo'o^ested, with ace and five 
others, to lead the ace, then the smallest 
but one — that is, the original Ji/th-hest. 
This, to some extent, foreshadowed Amer- 
ican Leads, although the object of the 
Drayson rules was solel}^ to show number. 
In the Field of April 8, 1882, the same 
author suggested that when the trumps 
28 



Whist 

were all out, the play of an unnecessarily 
hio^h card would be a direction to chancre 
the suit. He argues that the call for 
trumps is, in reality, a command to 
''change the suit to trumps"; conse- 
quently when, the trumps being all out, 
you play an unnecessarily high card, you 
can only imply that you want the suit 
changed to another plain suit. General 
Drayson has also proposed the reverse dis- 
card as a rule of play useful on occasions. 
It is the throwing, on the second discard, 
of a card of the same suit lower than the 
one first discarded, under circumstances 
when such play cannot be a call for 
trumps or an echo. For instance, your 
cards are such that you are forced to dis- 
card from your strong long suit. On two 
trump leads from your partner you first 
discard the penultimate, then the lowest 
of your suit, and you have, as it were, by 
reversing the order of the cards thrown 
away, negatived the meaning of the first 
discard, which proclaimed weakness in the 
suit. These last two rules of play appear 

29 



Whist 



to be sound, and are used by many ad- 
vanced players. 

In three articles, the first of which ap- 
peared in the Field of April 28, 1883, 
Dr. William Pole applied the laws of 
probabilities to the ever-vexed question of 
the play of the king and a small card, 
second hand, with the result of confirming 
the practice of playing the small card, as 
a general rule. 

Mogul," a whist celebrity, had, as far 
back as 1867, demonstrated the same fact 
by what " Pembridge," the clever author 
of Wliist or Bitml)lej)uj}j)y^ termed " a 
masterly analysis, itself a miracle of in- 
dustry," and who himself arrived at the 
same conclusion after keeping a record 
of over four thousand two hundred cases 
from actual play. 

We have now reached the epoch of 
American Leads. 

Although American Leads are exten- 
sively played in this country, many play- 
ers who follow them are ignorant of the 
principles on which they are based, prob- 
30 



Whist 



ably because these leads were suggested, 
explained, discussed, and abused in an 
English paper — the London Field — which 
has but a limited circulation in America. 
Therefore, before giving the historj^ of the 
development of those leads, it appears ad- 
visable to go over well-trodden ground, 
for the benefit of the many who play 
them without knowing the principles on 
which they are founded. 

The maxims or rules laid down by 
American Leads are as follows : 

1. AVhen you open a strong suit with a 
low cavd^ lead the foitrtJt-hest. 

2. When you open a strong suit with a 
high card^ and next lead a loio card^ lead 
t\\(d foui'th-iest,, counting f rom and includ- 
ing the card first led, 

3. When you remain with two high 
indifferent cards^ lead the higher, if you 
opened a suit of four ; the lower^ if you 
opened a suit of more than four. 

Maxims or Rules 1 and 2 are component 
parts of that principle governing the orig- 
inal lead which demands that it should be 

31 



Whist 



from the longest suit, inasmuch as ttiey 
provide a system which points out the 
card to be uniformly led from the long 
suit, under the contingencies mentioned 
in those rules. The selection of the par- 
ticular card to be led is not purely arbi- 
trary, but is founded on reason, as I will 
proceed to show. 

A suit of four cards is considered to be 
numerically strong, because it contains a 
number of cards over the average due to 
each player. It is the long suit of mini- 
mum strength, and therefore is the one 
held the most frequently. It is, so to 
speak, the type of the long suit. 

One of the results of opening a four- 
card suit from the bottom is, that the 
leader remains with three cards higher 
than the one led. The information con- 
tained in this simple fact is very impor- 
tant, as it often enables the partner of 
the leader to place certain cards in his 
hands. 

Suppose the cards to lie as follows : 
32 



Whist 



Q., 10, 7 



Ace, Kg., 4 




5, 3,2 



Kn.,9, 8, 6 



A leads the six ; and the king, seven, and 
two fall ; when A again obtains the lead 
he plays the eight; Y, the ace; B now 
knows that A must hold the knave and 
nine, the only two unplayed cards which 
are higher than the six. He can, therefore, 
safely throw his queen on the ace, and 
thus, perhaps, enable A to gain a trick by- 
unblocking the suit. 

Now give to A another small card, say 
the two, and suppose he opens the suit 
with it ; when it becomes B's turn to play 
on the second round, he will know nothing 
certain about the position of the knave 
and nine, and therefore cannot unblock, 
as he might lose a trick by attempting to 
do so. 

The opening of a four -card suit from 
the bottom affording incidentally, as we 



Whist 



have seen, valuable information as to the 
number, and often as to the rank, of cer- 
tain cards remaining in leader's hand, the 
question arises. Cannot this information be 
imparted in the opening of long suits con- 
taining more than four cards ? 

The solution of the question is simple : 
bring that class of cases under one sys- 
tem^ and treat every long suit opened vnth 
a loio card as if it contained four cards 
only therefore lead your fourth-hest, and 
the rest follows. 

For instance : 



The six is the proper card to lead in 
each case, leaving, invariably, three cards 
higher than the one led in the leaders 
hand. 

As will be perceived hj an examina- 
tion of the above example, Cavendish's" 
penultimate and Dravson's antepenulti- 
mate leads, introduced to show number, are 



From Kg., Kn., 8 6 



Kg.,Kn.,8 6 
Kg.,Kn.,8 6 
Kg., Kn., 8 6 



5 

5, 3 

5, 3, 2, etc. 



34 



Whist 



fractions of the system — outlying islands 
discovered before the mainland. 

Another incidental advantage of the sys- 
tem is that frequently some of the small 
cards which have not fallen to the first 
and second rounds are marked in leader's 
hand. Examine the folio win 2: dia^am 
sent by me to ^'Cavendish" at the time 
we were discussino^ the matter, 




6, 5,2 



Q., Kn., 8, 7, 4, 3 



and you will perceive that if A leads 
the seven (fourth -best), B can place, on 
the first round, queen, knave, eight in his 
partner's hand, and on the second round — 
barring a false card by Z — he can place 
the remaining small cards : the six with 
Z, and the four with A — for if the latter 
had the six, he would have played it on 

35 



Whist 



the second round, in order to declare the 
holding of the four and three. 

If A leads the three originalh^his partner 
will know next to nothing about his suit. 

The same system applies to suits of more 
than four cards which are opened with a 
high card, followed with a low one (Maxim 
or Eule 2) ; that is, we also treat them as 
containing four cards only, and lead the 
original fourth - lest after quitting the 
head of the suit. By adhering to system 
we preserve the advantage incidental to 
the play of a four-card suit similarh^ 
opened — of giving the information that 
the leader holds exactly two cards higher 
than the one led by him on the second 
round. 

EXAMPLE, 
lit 2d 



Lead. 




Lead 






Ace 


Kb., 


8 


6 






Ace 


Kii., 


8 


6 


^, 


3 


Ace 


Kn., 


8 


6 


5, 


3,2 



The king being no longer led from more 
than four cards, we may take suits headed 
by the ace as the type of the long suit 
opened from the top, because it is the one 

36 



Whist 



most frequently held. In'ow, in dropping 
from the ace to the original fourth-best, 
there alu^ays remain in the leader's hand 
two cards intermediate in value between 
the ones led to the first and second rounds ; 
therefore, in order to obtain analogous re- 
sults in the opening of the king, queen, 
more than four suits, the queen should be 
followed with the original fourth -best, 
counting from and including the queen. 



Not 1st 
Counted. Lead. 



Lead. 



' Qn. 


8, 6 


5 




Qn. 


8, 6 


5 


3 


Qu. 


8, 6 


5 


3, 2 



Hence Maxim or Eule 2 was formulat- 
ed so as to be general in its application. 

Here is an example from actual play of 
the workino: of Maxim or Eule 2 : 



Q., 8, 3 



Kg., Kn. 




Ace, 10, 9, 4, 2 
37 



Whist 



A, after leading the ace, played the 
seven ; when it became B's turn to play to 
the second round, he knew that A held 
the ten and nine, so he threw the queen 
to the king, thus unblocking A's suit, 
which enabled him to make four more 
tricks in it — a gain of three to the part- 
nership, for A had no card of re-entry 
after the trumps were exhausted, and B 
let him in with the eight of the suit, which 
he woukl otherwise have blocked had he 
retained the queen. 

The second branch of American Leads, 
which comes under Maxim or Rule 3, re- 
lates to the lead of high indifferent cards, 
marked in the player's hand, and is based 
on the principle that w^ith such cards, in 
opening suits of more than average nu- 
merical strength, the aim should be to get 
the master-card out of partner's hand, so 
as to free the suit. 

This principle is at least as old as Hoyle, 
and he put it in practice, as we have seen 
above, by directing that, with king, queen, 
knave, and two small ones, you should be- 
38 



Whist 



gin with the knave, and giving the reasons 
for so doing. This remained an isolated 
case until " Cavendish," carrying the prin- 
ciple one step further, introduced, in 1S75, 
the modification of the three leads quoted 
above — that is, following the ace with 
the knave instead of queen, from ace, 
queen, knave, more than one small ; fol- 
lowing the ace with the ten instead of 
queen from ace, queen, knave, ten, with or 
without small ones (since changed as noted 
above), and following queen with the ten, 
instead of knave, from queen, knave, ten, 
with more than one small one; alwavs 
leading, on the second round, as you will 
observe, the lower of the high indifferent 
cards, to induce partner to clear the suit 
by playing the master-card on the lower 
one, which he would not do on the higher 
one, if led. 

But, when Cavendish" applied the 
principle in question to the leads just 
above noted, the limit of the cases af- 
fected by that principle had by no means 
been reached, for the system of play nec- 
39 



Whist 



essary to put the principle in action is 
susceptible of being extended to a number 
of cases analogous in other respects, but 
where the fundamental reason, which gave 
being to the principle, no longer exists — 
in other words, when the master-card of 
the suit is forced on the first round or is 
in the hand of the leader. 

When you invite your partner to get 
rid of the command of your suit, you 
necessarily impart to him, at the same 
time, the knowledge that your suit is one 
of more than average numerical strength, 
otherwise there could be no object to 
have it unblocked. The message, then, 
which you convey to him b}^ the card led 
on the second round, is a twofold one. 
You ask him to free youv suit at the op- 
portune moment, and you inform him 
that you possess a long suit containing a 
certain determinate number of cards. 

Consequently, when the master-card of 
the suit is forced on the first round, or 
you hold it yourself, the question of clear- 
ing the suit is solved before you have 
40 



Whist 



occasion to make your second lead ; still 
there remains the important information 
to be disclosed to your partner concern- 
ing the numerical strength of your suit ; 
therefore, with a suit of more than four 
cards, you lead, on the second round, the 
same card which you would have played 
to induce him to unblock your suit — that 
is, the lower of two indifferent high cards ; 
with a shorter suit, you lead the higher of 
those cards. 

To illustrate, take a suit headed by the 
king, knave, and ten: you begin with the 
ten, the proper card to lead from that 
combination ; the queen, or both the 
queen and ace fall to the first round and 
you are left with two high indifferent 
cards — the king and knave ; still you fol- 
low the rule laid down, and you lead the 
knave after the ten, if your suit comprised 
five or more cards; and you lead the 
king after the ten, if it contained less 
than five; thus imparting valuable infor- 
mation to your partner. 

A stronger case in point is when you 
41 



Whist 



hold ace, king, queen, with five or more in 
suit. As the master-card is in your hand, 
there can be no question of unblocking; 
still, you follow the line of play intended 
primarily as a direction to your partner to 
clear the suit, but which you now use for 
the sole purpose of conve3^ing certain 
valuable information to him reo:ardincr 
the numerical strength of your suit ; 
therefore, with five in suit, you lead ace 
after queen, and, with more than five, you 
lead king after queen. 

At the time of the introduction of 
American Leads, this system of play was 
applied to the lead on the tliird round of 
a suit, owing to the fact that at that pe- 
riod some suits headed by four high cards 
were treated differently than they are 
now. For example, with ace, queen, 
knave, ten combination, the ten was led 
after the ace, with anv number in suit ; 
then, third round, the queen was led with 
four in suit, and the knave was led with 
more than four. But, since then, the 
leads which required a third round to dis- 
43 



Whist 



close the number of cards in suit have been 
so modified and simplified that this infor- 
mation is now imparted, in all cases, by 
the card led on the second round, as will 
be seen hereinafter. 

The system of American Leads having 
thus been briefly explained, I will now 
proceed to give their history. 

In July, 1883, I wrote to " Cavendish " 
the letter which I have referred to as con- 
taining the germ of one branch of American 
Leads. I said, in part, ''With a suit head- 
ed by king, knave, ten, the lead of the ten 
forcing out the queen, I always follow 
with king when I had originally four of 
the suit, and with knave when I had origi- 
nally five or more. I have no book author- 
ity for this, but I find it gives my partner 
valuable information." My letter went 
on to explain the reasons for so leading, 
which were substantially the same as 
those which have been given above for 
the play of iigh indifferent cards. This 
letter was published in the Fields with a 
note by ''Cavendish," from which I quote 
43 



Whist 

the following extracts: "We have sub- 
mitted our correspondent's king, knave, 
ten, etc., ' notion ' to several good players, 
and they are all of opinion that his sys- 
tem of leading is correct, and justifiable 
on general principles. We have stated 
over and over again in the J^ield that 
conventional rules of play are founded on 
extensions of principle, notwithstanding 
that the reason w^hich led to the adoption 
of the original principle does not exist in 
the conventional cases. ... As soon as 
the convention with regard to return 
leads was fully established — viz., to return 
the higher of two cards for the sole pur- 
pose of affording information, though tliis 
higher card were perchance only the three 
— the present extensions of a similar rule 
to leads were certain to follow after a 
time. In the case of this particular lead 
from king, knave, ten, no rule, so far as 
we know, has ever been previously laid 
down, and our valued correspondent is en- 
titled to the credit of having applied the 
extension to an omitted case." 

44 



Whist 



Although the germ of the system was 
contained in the above case, it was not 
until the beginning of the next year that 
it dawned upon me that this line of play 
was applicable to many other cases, and 
in March, 1884, 1 sent to the Field a short 
article in which I suggested the adoption 
of the now generally accepted rule for 
the play of high indifferent cards, arguing 
that it was based on the extension of a 
recognized general principle, and giving a 
number of examples. 

Mark how slowly the application of a 
whist principle seems to work itself into 
the human understanding. Hoyle gives 
an isolated case — king, queen, knave lead 
— involving a principle. One hundred 
and thirty-odd years elapse before ''Cav- 
endish" applies it to other leads ; eight 
more years go by before the principle is 
extended to another isolated case — king, 
knave, ten example ; and it takes another 
twelve months' mental incubation to bring 
forth the generalization of the principle. 
What appears to be specially worthy of 

45 



Whist 



note is the fact that the king, knave, ten 
example was before the best whist-play- 
ers of the world for several months, and 
not one of them seems to have perceived 
that it was but the application to one 
case of the extension of a well-established 
principle, which was susceptible of being 
generalized so as to embrace numerous 
cognate cases. 

What is also a matter of surprise is the 
fact that whist writers and players had 
not recooiiized the obvious bearino- of the 
lead of the lowest of a four -card suit on 
the play of second hand; for instance, 
with king, knave, nine, one or more small, 
second player should cover with the nine 
the eight led by a good player on the 
original lead of the hand ; otherwise the 
eight will hold the trick, for if the leader 
has opened from a four -card suit, his re- 
maining cards must be the ace, queen, and 
ten. As well as I can remember, Clay is 
the only writer who came near the mark 
when he read the nine, knave, king (or ace) 
in the hand of a player who led the six, 
46 



Whist 



and advised third player to finesse the 
ten, holding also the seven, eight, and 
qneen; but he does not seem to have 
noticed the importance of the informa- 
tion as affecting the play of second 
hand. 

During the interval between the publi- 
cation of the two articles on the lead of 
high indifferent cards I furnished to the 
Field a letter on the penultimate lead on 
the second round of the suit," in which 
the penultimate w^as recommended as the 
proper lead after quitting the head of the 
suit, in order to show number. In com- 
menting on this suggested method of play, 
Cavendish," in a Field article, after giv- 
ing one favorable position and two unfa- 
vorable ones, concluded by saying : If 
N". B. T. w411 class the cases after analysis 
in which a trick cannot be given away by 
his method, and can thence formulate a 
plain rule of play, I think his proposed 
method might be advantageously employ- 
ed. Perhaps he will kindly try his hand 
at this, and send result to the Field, I 

47 



Whist 



think, however, he will find it more trou- 
blesome than he expects." 

This elicited the suggested analysis pub- 
lished in the Field April 5, 1884, the re- 
sult of which was the formulating of a 
rule of play which would leave a never- 
varying interval of two cards between the 
card first led and the one led to the sec- 
ond round ; afterwards put in a more con- 
cise way by directing the follow of the 

original fourth-best." 

The lead of the fourth-best when open- 
ing a suit with a low card was not ad- 
vocated by me in print, but was settled 
between " Cavendish " and me by corre- 
spondence. What is not generally known 
— for Mr. Henry Jones has modestly kept 
it to himself — -is that he independently 
suggested this rule of play in a letter 
w^hich crossed one from me of the same 
import. 

In his letter Cavendish " said : " I call 
four the normal number in strong suits. 
It is the type; more than four is very 
strong. Treat every suit (except ace suits 
48 



Whist 



and king, queen, knave suits with five) as 
though you held only four, without the 
supernumerary small cards. The rest fol- 
lows." I wrote: Treat every long suit 
as if it were originally the ordinary long 
suit of four cards ; consequently, lead the 
fourth from the top, or drop down to the 
fourth from the top, on quitting the head 
of the suit." 

It seems from the above that our ideas 
on the subject ran parallel, and whatever 
credit may attach to the introduction of 
the fourth -best when a low card is led, 
"Cavendish" is certainly entitled to his 
share of it. 

While on the subject of fourth -bests, I 
beg my reader's permission for a short di- 
gression. As it has been claimed for Gen- 
eral Drayson that he first introduced the 
fourth -best lead, I take this opportunity 
to note the difference between his ante- 
penultimate and the fourth-best. He ex- 
tended the principle of the penultimate 
lead of Cavendish" to suits of six cards: 
both schemes were admittedly intended 
D 49 



Whist 



solely to show number. The fourth-best 
lead, on the other hand, applied to every 
long suit, and thus erected into a system 
based on a principle, is intended primarily 
to show the possession by the leader of 
three cards higher than the one origi- 
nally led, the holding of smaller cards 
and number in suit being disclosed inci- 
dentally. Although this difference has 
been pointed out by other ^vriters, I 
thought it w^ell to refer to it, lest my 
silence be construed into an admission 
that the claim made for General Dray son 
is w^ell founded. 

For some time after the publication of 
the articles in the Fields nothing more 
appeared in print on the subject. In the 
meantime it w^as evident, from the letters 
of Mr. Hemy Jones to me, that American 
Leads," as he called them, were growing 
in his estimation. He wanted me to pub- 
lish them in pamphlet form, but, not being 
inclined to do so, I left it to him to cham- 
pion the leads, and on the 9th of August, 
188 J:, there appeared in the Field the first 
50 



Whist 



article on American Leads by "Caven- 
dish," in the introduction to which he 
said : Having satisfied ourselves that 
these leads are sound and in harmony 
with general principles of play, and that 
they are advantageous to those who prac- 
tise them, there is evidently but one 
course open to us, viz., to give them our 
unqualified support." In this, and in two 
other articles which followed during the 
same month, he explained the whole sys- 
tem of American Leads in a clear and 
forcible manner, which must have carried 
conviction to any unbiassed mind. 

That an unknown individual sio^nino; 
himself JS". B. T. was suo^o^estino- some in- 
novations to the game seemed to be a 
matter of perfect indifference to the con- 
servatives, who paid not the slightest at- 
tention to his articles ; but when Caven- 
dish" declared that he intended to give 
his "unqualified support" to American 
Leads, the mediaeval division of players 
rose up in arms against the proposed im- 
provements. 

51 



Whist 



^^Mogul" put on his war-paint and 
made some savage attacks in the Field 
on American Leads and their authors, de- 
nouncing the leads as abominable modern 
inventions." Pembriclge " rushed into 
print with Tlie Decline and Fall of Whist^ 
m which he gave vent to his pent-up 
feelings ''of abliorrence of the recent 
proceedings of the new academy"; and 
several of the lesser whist lights also en- 
tered the lists against American Leads. 

The denunciations of these parties did 
not in the least alter ''Cavendish's" opin- 
ion, for he continued to champion Ameri- 
can Leads in every possible manner. In 
February, 1885, he delivered a lecture on 
the subject to a large gathering of promi- 
nent whist-players, in the drawing-room 
of the United Whist Club, in London, a 
summary of which appeared in the Xew 
York Spirit of the Tiines^ March 14, 1885. 
In the following month he published, in 
the same paper, an article entitled "Mr. 
Barlow on American Leads at Whist," 
containing an instructive lesson under the 



Whist 



guise of a clever travesty of the old- 
fashioned style of Sandford and Merton^ 
and of the pompousness of Mr. Barlow, 
who did not forget to back up Hany and 
snub Tommy, as was his habit. In De- 
cember of the same j^ear he published an 
article on American Leads in MacmillarCs 
Magazine^ and finally, after the pros and 
cons had been pretty thoroughly thresh- 
ed out in the Fields he incorporated the 
whole system of American Leads in the 
sixteenth edition of his Laios and Princi- 
jples of Whist^ 1886, the recognized text- 
book of the whist -player. From that 
moment the future of those leads as a 
permanent feature of the game was as- 
sured. 

The American Leads discussion in the 
Field was summed up by Merry An- 
drew," one of the participants, in a pam- 
phlet entitled " The American Lead Con- 
troversy." The title-page bore the motto : 
" Vous savez les American Leads^ jeune 
hommef Quelle tkist(^) meillesse vous 
vous prej)arez /" — engrafting a pleasantry 

53 



Whist 

on a parody of Tallej^rand's well-known 
prediction of a cheerless old age to the 
youth who was ignorant of the game. 

During this period Whist was advanc- 
ing with rapid strides in other directions. 
Dr. Pole, applying his high mathematical 
and logical attainments to the solution of 
the question of second hand covering an 
honor with an honor, holding fewer than 
four in suit, published the results of his 
calculations in the Fields April 26, 1884, 
by which he demonstrated that the cover- 
ing was disadvantageous. Since that pe- 
riod this time -honored practice has been 
abandoned. 

In the Field of October 11, 1884, ap- 
peared the first of nine articles on The 
Play of Third Hand," a masterly and ex- 
haustive piece of whist analysis, by which 
Cavendish" reduced the unblocking play 
to a system, called by him at the time The 
Plain -Suit Eclio," a designation which 
he soon afterwards changed to " The Un- 
blocking Game." This consists in retain- 
ing the lowest card of your partner's 

54 



Whist 



long suit, when you hold four exactly, by 
which play you often clear his suit and 
gain one or more tricks for the partner- 
ship. The typical case, and the one which 
emphasizes the method, owing to the com- 
manding: streno;th of the cards, is the kino:, 
queen, knave and one small combination, 
when j^ou throw the knave to the ace led 
by your partner and afterwards " play 
up," even when your adversaries are trump- 
ing the suit after the first round, reserving 
the small card to the end. 

An incident of this line of play is the 
showing of the number of cards you hold 
in your partner's suit. If a small card, 
sav the two, which otherwise should have 
been played, does not appear on the sec- 
ond round, it is marked in your hand, bar 
the suppression of a call for trumps, and 
the holding by you of four cards in the 
suit is indicated. On the other hand, if, 
to the first round, you play the two, or its 
equivalent from your partner's point of 
view, he knows you have fewer than four. 
This opportunity to show number is al- 

55 



Whist 



AvaA's present, because, in this, as in other 
sj^stems, the line of play indicated is per- 
severed in, although the primary object of 
the method cannot be attained in some 
particular cases — for instance, with the 
five, four, three, and two of your partner s 
suit you cannot block it ; and with four 
cards in sequence you cannot unblock it ; 
still, you must pla}^ in a uniform manner 
and retain your lowest card to the last. 

It happens, in this case, that the inci- 
dent is a more important factor towards 
handling the suit with success than the 
pla}" of which it is an adjunct, because the 
disclosing of number in his suit is fre- 
quently useful to your partner, while the 
unblocking results but seldom in any gain, 
owino^ to the circumstance that a card of 
re-entr}^ makes it useless, or weakness in 
trumps renders it ineffectual. 

Again, we find that our old friend 
Hoyle has laid the foundation for this 
other system. He writes : We will now 
suppose your partner is to lead, and in the 
course of play it appears to you that your 

56 



Whist 



partner has one great suit ; suppose ace, 
king, and four small ones, and that you 
have queen, ten, nine, and a very small 
one of that suit ; when your partner plays 
the ace, you are to play the nine ; when 
he plays the king, you are to play the 
ten ; by which means, you see, in the third 
round you make your queen, and, having 
a small one remaining, j^ou do not ob- 
struct your partner's great suit." 

It appears, too, from the foregoing ex- 
ample, that Hoyle led the ace, with king 
and four small ones — a lead generally sup- 
posed to be a modern one. 

The Play of Third Hand, together with 
American Leads and the new play of not 
covering an honor (except, of course, with 
the ace), as recommended by Dr. Pole, 
was embodied by ''Cavendish" in his 
well - known work. Whist Developnen ts^ 
published in 1SS5. 

In 18S5 the sub-echo, or showing three 
trumps, was suggested by me to our 
w^hist circle. It was pronounced to be 
sound in theory, being an instance of pro- 
57 



Whist 



gressiveness of whist language, and after 
some months' trial was adopted as a use- 
ful device. It is merely echoing after 
showing that 3^ou have not four trumps, 
by not echoing when j^ou had the oppor- 
tunity to do so, or by your return cards in 
the trump suit. There are several waj^s 
of sub-echoing ; the simplest case is this : 
your partner leads a trump on which you 
play the two — you cannot therefore have 
four. A plain suit is opened, you echo, 
and you thus tell him you held three 
trumps originally. 

" Cavendish " did not for several years 
give his sanction to the sub -echo, which 
was explained in a Field article, Novem- 
ber 21, 1SS5; but when he did he sug- 
gested a modification, which is doubtless 
an improvement ; it is to begin the sub- 
echo at once; for instance, my method 
was as follows: holding, say, the seven, 
five, and three in a plain suit, I played the 
three, then the seven, followed by the five 
on the third round, which completed the 
sub -echo. Cavendish" said: ''In my 
58 



Whist 



opinion, you should play the fiv^e to the 
first round, the seven to the second round, 
and the three to the third round. If you 
are going to sub-echo, you may as well be- 
gin at once. Your partner, missing a very 
small card on the first and second rounds, 
may divine a sub -echo before it is com- 
pleted ; or, when you play the five, you 
may not have been able to show that you 
did not hold four trumps. Before 3^ou 
have occasion to play the suit again, this 
information may have been afforded. You 
can then complete the sub -echo on the 
second round, by next playing the three.-' 

After discussion in the Field, during 
the year 1887, the lead of the knave, with 
ten, nine, four or more in suit was given 
up for the fourth-best. 

As far back as Februarv, 1884, Caven- 
dish" wrote to me as follows: '^From 
king, queen, five in suit, might not queen 
be led ? If queen wins, continue with 
small. This cannot be queen, knave, ten 
lead, or knave would be next lead; so it 
must be something else, viz., king, queen, 
59 



Whist 

more than four in suit. . . . This may also 
necessitate reconsideration of leads from 
ace, king, five in suit. If ace is first led, 
then king, leader has at least three small 
ones ; this lead has often been proposed, 
but at present the best players I know 
think the immediate demonstration of ace, 
king, more important than declaration of 
number." Althouo^h his conviction OTew 
stronger every day that these leads were 
right — in fact, necessary — as adjuncts to 
the unblocking play, yet so great is his 
respect for British conservatism that four 
years elapsed before ''Cavendish" formal- 
ly recommended them in print, which he 
did (''in fear and quake," as he afterwards 
acknowledged) in three Field articles, the 
first appearing Ma}^ 12, 1888. To his 
great surprise, however, his fears that 
these innovations would meet with vio- 
lent opposition proved to be groundless. 
In ihQ^ Field of December 28, 1889, he 
says : " I find that these leads are adopted 
all over the kingdom, not only by the mi- 
nority, but by players to whom American 



Whist 



Leads are a sealed book, and who never 
dream of unblocking." 

About the same time, I sent a letter to 
the Fields published in June, 1SS8, recom- 
mending and advocating, in a colloquial 
form, the lead of queen, with ace, king, 
and two or more small ones, and the lead 
of the knave, Avith ace, king, queen, and 
one or more small ones, which are leads 
replete with information, because the ex- 
ceptional number of high indifferent cards 
enables one to show greater length in suit 
than can be accomplished with weaker 
combinations of the cards. 

An important change in Maxim 2 of 
American Leads was rendered necessary 
by the introduction of the lead of the 
queen, with king and three or more small 
ones. 

At the time that maxim w^as formu- 
lated the king was always led, with queen 
and any number of small cards of the suit, 
and the rule was to follow the king with 
original fourth-best, just as in the case of 
the ace. I saw that this would not work 

61 



Whist 



■with the new lead, and wrote to "Cav- 
endish" — pubhshed in Fidd. August 25, 
ISS^ — in part, as follows : 

I am entirely in accord with you in 
evervthiiiD^ vou have said in rea^ard to 
those leads umd the ones associated with 
them) except on one point, viz.. as to fol- 
lowing Cjueen with original fourth-best. 

''See wliat a mess B may make of it, 
by not knowing to a certainty the nature 
of A's lead. 



Ace, 5, 4 







B 




2 


Y 










A 


1 



Kg,Q, 10, 9, 7,3 



'•A leads Cjueen. then nine (original 
fourth-best): as far as B knows, the lead 
may be from queen, knave, ten, nine. 
Now if B passes the nine, to capture the 
king, supposed to be in Y's hand, he loses 
the second trick and blocks A's suit. If 
Y holds knave with his other two cards, 
62 



Whist 



the result is not quite so disastrous ; still, 
bad enough, for A's suit is blocked. 

" You will either have to make an ex- 
ception with king, queen, ten, nine, or 
to abandon altoo:ether the lead of orio^i- 
nal fourth -best, when queen is led from 
king, queen, more than four in suit. Bather 
than have any exceptions, I am in favor 
of the latter course — that is, with king, 
queen, three or more, lead queen, then 
fourth-best 7'emaining, This would leave 
in leader's hand two cards, instead of one, 
higher than the card led ; just as is the 
case in tlie ace lead followed by original 
fourth-best." 

The second maxim was then recast to 
cover the case. 

The now well-known eleven rule was 
first given to the public in the early part 
of 1890. It is a rule of thumb, resulting 
from the solution of a very simple arith- 
metical problem, by which the number of 
cards superior to the fourth-best led that 
are out against the leader may be quickly 
ascertained. This is done by deducting 
63 



Whist 



the number of pips on the fourth-best card 
from eleven, the remainder giving the 
number of those higher cards. This has 
been derisivel}^ styled " playing whist by 
arithmetic." This rule was first worked 
out, as far back as 1881, by Mr. E. T. 
Foster, of K'ew York, the clever whist 
author and teacher, who, however, did 
not divulge it, except in strict confidence 
to his pupils, and to a few other persons, 
^'Cavendish" among them. It was after- 
wards independent!}^ formulated by Mr. E. 
F. M. Benecke, M.A., of Balliol College, 
Oxford, and made public in the Field^ of 
January 4, 1890, by his friend Mr. Henry 
A. Cohen, who took occasion in his article 
to make some interestins: observations on 
the play of second hand as affected by the 
fourth-best leads. 

In three papers published in the Fields 
in March, April, and June, 1890, Mr. AY. 
H. "Whitfeld, M.A., the eminent mathe- 
matician — who as a whist analyst and a 
double - dummy composer is without a su- 
perior — investigated the old problem of 
64 



Whist 



the play, second hand, with king and an- 
other in plain suits, taking into considera- 
tion the magnitude of the card led — a fac- 
tor neglected by Dr. Pole in his analysis 
above referred to — obtaining practically 
the same result as the latter, that the small 
card is the more advantageous play, and 
which was further confirmed by the calcu- 
lations made by Mr. A. E. Smith, B.A., 
made on entirely different lines, published 
in the Field about the same time. 

These results, taken in conjunction with 
those already obtained by Dr. Pole, '^Mo- 
gul," and "Pembridge," ought to settle 
definitely this troublesome question, were 
it not that a new and disturbing element 
has since come into pla}^, which must 
modify the conclusions arrived at by those 
experts. I mean the new lead of the 
fourth-best card, from ace with four others, 
not the king or both queen and knave, 
which may equalize the chances for the 
play of either card, or, possibly, throw the 
balance of advantage on the side of the 
king. 

E 65 



Whist 

In the early part of 1891 the cuhni- 
nating-point in the development of whist 
leads seems to have been reached, as ap- 
pears from the contents of an important 
and comprehensive article which appeared 
in the Field of January 24:th of that year, 
entitled " On the Leads of High Cards." 
The writer, who signed himself "A Be- 
liever in Whist Developments," who had 
Avith marked abihty and fairness taken a 
prominent part in the discussion of Ameri- 
can Leads, and who, as I have reason to 
know, was in close touch with "Caven- 
dish," after referring to a paper by him — 
Fields November, 1890 — in which he had 
proposed that with king, queen, knave, 
ten, and no small one, king should be led, 
followed with the ten, went on to say: 
But I should like now to draw attention 
to the consequence of this lead. There are 
two analogous leads, viz., that from ace, 
queen, knave, ten, without any small card, 
and that from queen, knave, ten, nine, 
without any small card. Applying the 
same principle to these combinations, it 

66 



Whist 

seems to me that ace, then ten, should 
show queen, knave, no small card remain- 
ing in leader's hand ; and that queen, then 
nine, should show knave, ten remaining 
in the leader's hand. If this is approved 
of, the effect will be to simplify the leads 
from the high cards, and to enable the 
leader to communicate all the informa- 
tion required as to his suit, on the second 
rounds in all cases where the suit is led 
twice by the same player. The necessity 
for laying down fixed rules for the card 
to lead on the third round of a suit is thus 
avoided, and this is as it should be, for 
after two rounds are out the leader must 
often be guided by the previous fall of 
the cards. As to the card to select for 
the third round, I should add that, though 
I saw the effect of the play on these two 
combinations, I did not observe its appli- 
cation to leads from high cards in general, 
until it was pointed out to me by Caven- 
dish." 

The writer then proceeded to run through 
all the various leads from high cards, mak- 
er 



Whist 



ing it plain that in every instance the 
third hand gains on the second round all 
the knowledge required of the combina- 
tion of cards which his partner held origi- 
nally in the suit opened by him. 

These leads had the important effect of 
doing away with the third-lead complica- 
tion, explained in a preceding example; 
and they are so sound and simple that 
they have remained practically unchanged 
to this day. They w^ere, shortly after the 
appearance of ^'Believer's" article, pub- 
lished by Cavendish " in a pamphlet, en- 
titled Americcm Leads Simjjlified, 

Let me here remark that the term 
"American Leads" was originally applied 
by '^Cavendisli" to those leads embraced 
under the three maxims herein stated. At 
present the entire system of modern leads 
is generally referred to as "American 
Leads." This is not correct, for nearly 
all the leads from high cards had their 
origin in England; the second and third 
maxims of American Leads being grafted 
on them to regulate the lead on the sec- 
68 



Whist 



oncl round. Therefore it would be but 
just and proper that the system, as a 
whole, be called the Anglo-American 
Leads. 

In a Field article, January 2, 1892, 
Believer in Whist Developments" ex- 
pressed his doubts as regards the advan- 
tage of the second maxim of American 
Leads, because of the very precise infor- 
mation often given by the fourth-best fol- 
lowing the ace, which enabled second hand 
to finesse with success. I anticipated some- 
thing of the kind, for Cavendish" had 
several months before w^ritten to me that 
many of the best players had given up the 
second maxim, for the reasons set forth 
by "Believer." "Cavendish" himself then 
took up the subject, and after discussing 
it in four Field articles, the first of which 
appeared April 2, 1892, arrived at the 
conclusion that we would have to return 
to the old play, of leading lowest after 
the ace. In support of his contention he 
drew particular attention to the following 
position : 

69 



Whist 



6,5 



Kg, Kn, 3 




Ace, Q, 10, 9, 2 



A leads the ace, followed by the nine, 
on which Y finesses the knave — owing to 
information afforded by the play of the 
nine — thus gaining a trick and blocking 
A's suit. This position is the bugbear of 
the opponents of the second maxim, which 
otherwise would probably never have been 
opposed. 

And right here it may be pertinent to 
ask, if the lead of the nine after the ace 
is disadvantao:eous, whv is the lead of the 
nine before the ace not equally so, under 
the same condition as to the holding of 
second hand ? 

^•Believers" article had elicited an an- 
swer from Mr. W. S. Fenollosa, of Salem, 
Massachusetts— February 3, 1892— 
who, although he did not agree, ended his 
^ 70 



Whist 



letter by saying: '*If the lead of ace, and 
then the fourth-best, is to be changed, I 
trust the amendment will be, ^ace and then 
the fif tl>best,' b}^ which method suits of five 
cards can be easily distinguished from suits 
of more than five." ^'Cavendish" said 
that Mr. Fenollosa was right, and he adopt- 
ed his suggestion. He did this the more 
readily because the second maxim would 
still hold good, in this case, under the same 
rule applied to the lead with king, queen, 
three or more others. "Cavendish" makes 
an exception, however, for the combina- 
tion of ace, knave, ten, nine, and one or 
more small, when he follow^s ace with the 
nine, not as a fourth-best, but as a card 
of protection." Why the nine, with ace, 
queen, ten, is not also a card of protection, 
has never been very clear to me. 

Before discussing the matter, I may say 
in a general way that there is not a sin- 
gle rule at whist, even the simplest, which 
may not cause an occasional loss, either 
from the position of the cards, or from in- 
formation conveyed b}^ the play and taken 
71 



Whist 



advantage of by the adversaries. iSo im- 
munity from the operation of this general 
exception is claimed for American Leads. 
It is therefore to be expected that posi- 
tions unfavorable to those leads will some- 
times occur. The question is, on which 
side does the balance of advantage lie in 
the long run ? 

The advantage of the play is, that it en- 
ables partner — 

I. To unblock leader's suit in some posi- 
tions of the cards. 

II. To ascertain earh^ in the play when 
leader's suit is established. 

The disadvantage is, that second hand 
may profit by the information imparted 
by the lead and make a successful finesse, 
as exemplified in the foregoing diagram. 
In the examination of the subject it will 
be convenient to designate leader, second, 
third, and fourth hands respectively as A, 
Y, B, and Z. 

To ascertain the comparative frequency, 
advantage, and disadvantage of the finess- 
ing and unblocking positions, the deter- 



Whist 



mining of ^vhicli would go far towards 
solving the question, involves the consid- 
eration of so many factors that it would 
be no cause for surprise if a Pole or a 
Whitfeld should hesitate to grapple math- 
ematically so complex a problem. In de- 
fault of such a solution, I shall present 
briefl}^ the main arguments in support of 
the retention of the second maxim. 

In the first place, it is evident that the 
change from the fourth to the fifth best 
has not entirely done away with the infor- 
mation directing Y to finesse successfully, 
but has only reduced the number of posi- 
tions in which the dreaded contingency 
will occur. If the fourth and fifth best are 
in sequence, or if there is a break of one 
card in the sequence, and that card is held 
by Y or falls on the first round, the finesse 
is still on. For example, add the eight to 
A's cards, in foregoing diagram, or the 
seven, giving Y the eight, or the latter 
card falling from B's or Z's hand, and Y 
can finesse the knave just the same on the 
second round. Those who play " by arith- 
73 



Whist 



metic " can use a ten-^nde in cases of leads 
of the fifth -best, based on a calculation 
similar to that which established the eleven- 
rule in cases of leads of the fourth-best. 

In the second place, as can be easily 
demonstrated, the unblocking positions al- 
low of a more general distribution of the 
cards among the players than the finessing 
positions, therefore it follows that the op- 
portunity presents itself more frequently 
for unblocking than for finessing. This 
advantage is no doubt, to a certain extent, 
counterbalanced by the fact that the un- 
blocking coup has been played in vain 
when the original leader is left with a 
card of re-entry at the opportune moment. 
Again, B may trump the third round of 
the suitj neutralizing the advantage of the 
finesse. 

Another point which may also be noted 
in favor of unblocking is that sometimes 
two and even three tricks are gained by it, 
Avhile the finesse will seldom result in a 
gain of more than one trick. 

My personal experience is that both the 
74 



Whist 



finessing and unblocking positions present 
themselves at very rare intervals. When 

Cavendish" first wrote to me that the 
second maxim Avould probably be aban- 
doned, I began to watch, both as player 
and as a looker-on, for the occurrence of 
the finesse position of king, knave, one 
small, against ace, queen, ten, nine, and 
small. It was two years and a half before 
it happened. The rarity of the occur- 
rence is somewhat increased by the fact 
that the position might be present, but, if 
Y is in the lead before A, he may lead 
from the king, knave, and two others, if 
it is his strongest suit. 

Conceding that the advantages and dis- 
advantages of the finessing and unblock- 
ing features about balance, there is left 
the very considerable advantage in favor 
of the lead of original fourth- best that 
it frequently enables B to ascertain on 
the first or second round that his part- 
ner's suit is established, thus guiding him 
to a successful play of the hand by a 
timeh^ lead of trumps. For the above 
75 



Whist 



reasons I have alwaj^s followed the sec- 
ond maxim as originally formulated. I 
am pleased to know that I have, in that 
respect, the support of Mr. C. D. P. Ham- 
ilton, the distinguished whist author, who, 
after an exhaustive analysis of the ques- 
tion, made on some of the lines above 
noted, and which was published in Whist 
in 1895, reached the conclusion that " the 
advantages attending the practical appli- 
cation of the second maxim of American 
Leads are overwhelming as compared with 
the disadvantages." 

The question will lose much of the im- 
portance which may be attached to it if 
the lead of the fourth-best, from ace, five 
in suit, now undergoing probation, should 
be generally adopted. 

With the incident of this disputed 
amendment the history of American 
Leads closes. If I have gone into many 
details which may have proved weari- 
some to my readers, I beg their indul- 
gence because of the end in view, which 
was to bring to their cognizance the fact 
76 



Whist 



that those leads, which are comprehended 
in three short maxims, did not spring sud- 
denly into existence, but were gradually 
worked out and erected into a harmonious 
system only after years of patient investi- 
gation and trial, aided by intelligent dis- 
cussion, and stimulated by a stubborn op- 
position. 

It is evident from the foregoing that 
Whist made great progress in the three 
decades preceding the year 1892. The 
general tendency of improvement has 
been towards defining and generalizing 
the principles inherent to the game, with 
the result of systematizing the play, 
which, in turn, has assisted to further 
the interests of the combination of part- 
nership hands, which Dr. Pole justly con- 
siders to be the broad fundamental prin- 
ciple on which the modern scientific game 
is based. 



©art 1F1F 

American Whist Innovations 



IT was my intention, when I began 
this little work, to confine myself to 
the history of American Leads, but 
having been repeatedly asked by many 
players for an opinion on the later Ameri- 
can whist innovations, I decided to avail 
myself of the present opportunity to com- 
ply with their request by briefl}^ review- 
ing the whole subject. 

About ten or twelve years ago the 
American people seemed to have awaken- 
ed to the fact that there was such a game 
as scientific whist. Their attention was 
doubtless first drawn to it by the publica- 
tion in 1887 of Wliist TJniversal^ by the 
late George W. Pettes, the first Ameri- 
can book on the game, which, however, 
owing to the vagaries of the author, in 
conjunction with an absurd code of laws, 
had but a short-lived influence on the' 

F 81 



Whist 



methods of play. The game soon sprang 
into general favor, and the interest in the 
pastime grew and expanded until it cul- 
minated in the convening of the first 
American Whist Congress in 1891, fol- 
lowed by the organization of the Amer- 
ican Whist League, the enactment and 
adoption of an excellent code of laws, and 
the monthly publication of an ably edited 
journal, Whist^ devoted to the interest of 
the game, and now the official organ of 
the League." 

The introduction of Duplicate Whist, 
with all necessary appliances and sched- 
ules for play, ingeniously worked out by 
Mr. John T. Mitchell, Mr. Edwin C. 
Howell, and others, by which the element 
of luck was reduced to a minimum, has 
done much to increase the popularity of 
the game, making possible the contests 

■^AU whist - players owe a debt of gratitude to 
Mr. Eugene S. Elliott, who was zealously seconded 
by Mr. Theodore Schwarz, for inaugurating and 
bringing to a successful issue the movement which 
resulted in the accomplishment of these ends. 
82 



Whist 



for trophies, inaugurated and conducted 
by the American AVhist League and other 
kindred associations. 

As was to be expected from their pro- 
gressive and inventive turn of mind, our 
countrymen, as soon as they began to take 
an interest in the game, set to work to 
improve it, with what success it shall be 
my present aim to show. 

The more modern American Whist de- 
velopments or innovations may be divided 
into three classes : 

I. Entirely new plays, such as the irreg- 
ular opening lead to demand a trump from 
partner through a turned -up honor; the 
four-trumps signal, and other methods of 
showing strength in trumps ; the echo with 
high cards; the three-echo; the signal of 
holding command of a suit when trumps 
are out ; various new modes of discard- 
ing, etc. 

II. Modifications in the heretofore rec- 
ognized leads, viz., the fourth -best from 
suits of more than four cards headed by the 
ace, without the king or both queen and 

83 



Whist 



knave. The fourth- best from the king, 
knave, ten combination. The ten from 
the queen, knave, ten combination, etc. 
III. Isew systems. 

NEW PLAYS 

An examination of the cases coming un- 
der this class brino^s out forciblv the fact 
that ever\^ other inventor seems to have 
a craze to give information of some kind 
about his trump suit, by his lead in a plain 
suit, or by some modification of the nat- 
ural order of playing the cards. 

These various schemes for showing four 
tramps by the four -signal, by changing 
the usual order of the cards in leadins:, bv 
the original lead of a high card from a 
short suit, and by the lead of a very small 
card, will not, it is safe to assert, prove 
successful in the majority of cases. This 
declaration of strength in trumps is, of 
course, an advantage when partner has 
such a good hand as will justify an imme- 
diate trump lead ; but it is two to one 
that he will not hold such cards, and in 
84 



Whist 



that case it is hard to imagine a more 
helpless position for the tvro partners to 
be in. If their hands are not slaughtered 
it is because their adversaries are not pla}^- 
ers of a calibre to take advantage of the 
information that one of the opponents is 
strong in trumps, with probably no very 
good plain suit, and that the other has so 
weak a hand that he dare not lead trumps 
after his partner has declared strength in 
them. The call for trumps is not a par- 
allel case, as it is a command to partner 
for a trump lead and for a generally 
aggressive game. 

An irregular lead, as a call for trumps 
through a turned-up honor, is one of the 
schemes which seems to have taken the 
popular fancy. Especially does it appear 
advantageous when the irregular card is 
one from the long suit of the leader, who 
therefore does not have to depart from 
the important principle of opening from 
his strong suit, in the attempt to accom- 
plish the end in view. At first I rather 

85 



Whist 

liked the scheme, but after giving it a 
trial I have come to the conclusion that, 
in the long-run, this method of play is a 
trick-loser. Its successful application de- 
pends on several contingencies, therefore 
rendering the favorable position of rare 
occurrence. For instance, take the case of 
the king turned up which is doubly guard- 
ed. The leader, holding ace, queen, nine, 
and two small trumps, and a plain suit of 
five cards, say king, knave, nine, eight, and 
one small one, leads the nine of the plain 
suit. In the first place, his partner must 
be able to read that this is an irregular 
lead; then he must hold the knave of 
trumps with at least one sma^ll one in order 
to hem in the king — a combination of cir- 
cumstances which does not occur often. 
If third plaj^er holds any other two trumps, 
nothing is gained by the play, and delay 
is incurred. In the meanwhile the adver- 
saries, who see the plan of operation, try to 
make, and often succeed in making, one or 
more trumps by returning the leader's long 
suit and playing for a cross -ruff. They 
86 



Whist 



also hasten to " pick out the plums " by 
making their aces and kings, in view of the 
strong game disclosed by the demand for 
a trump lead through the turned-up honor, 
which, after all, is not often caught. 

The advantage of echoing on partner's 
lead of a small trump, by playing the ace, 
then the king — or the king, then the queen, 
when the ace is turned up by him or by 
the adversary on your right — had long 
been apparent, but the method was not 
extended to other cases for fear of upset- 
ting partners' calculations b}^ the tempo- 
rary declaration that you do not hold the 
card next lowest to the one with which 
you have attempted to take the trick. For 
example, take the case of king and queen; 
the king is won by the ace, and your part- 
ner places the queen anywhere but with 
vou, and the manao:ement of his hand 
is consequently seriously hampered. One 
day it dawned upon me that the solu- 
tion of the difficulty was a simple one, 
the nature of the play itself being sug- 
87 ^ 



Whist * 



gestive of the remedy. It is to extend 
the ordinary inference drawn from the 
rank of the card with which third hand 
has attempted to win the trick so as to 
include the possible holding by him of the 
card next loioest^ as well as the one next 
highest^ to the one played by him. This 
exceptional extension of inference does 
away witli the heretofore existing objec- 
tion, and echoing can now be accomphshed 
with any two cards in sequence at the 
head of the trump suit without danger 
of puzzling your partner. This was point- 
ed out by me in an article published in 
the Chicago Inter-Ocean^ in March, 1894. 

The three - echo is an innovation first 
proposed by Dr. H. E. Greene in the 
March, 1895, Whist, Its object is to show 
three trumps instead of four, by echoing 
immediately. Presented originally in rath- 
er a crude form, it has since developed 
under the investigations and suggestions 
of other whist students ; but there seems 
as yet no generally accepted manner of 
88 



Whist 



playing it. Some substitute it integrally 
for the four-echo ; others use it with the 
smaller cards, but echo four trumps at 
once with the high indifferent cards. 
Again, a class of players echo immediate- 
ly Avith three or four trumps ; this, sup- 
plemented with a subsequent echo in a 
plain suit to show more than three trumps, 
is, in my opinion, a method far superior 
to the others. With four or more small 
trumps the echo is begun with second- 
best, followed by the third-best; the ab- 
sence of the small trump or trumps from 
those played being depended on to show 
number. The play of false cards, which 
is excellent whist tactics on adverse 
trump leads, will often render this scheme 
nugatory. 

The three-echo, in one or another of its 
forms, is, as I understand, widely used 
throughout the country. The presump- 
tion from this is that it has been found 
advantageous as compared Avith the four- 
echo; but no conclusive proof of that fact 
has yet been furnished to the whist-play- 
89 



Whist 



ing public. The stock argument in sup- 
port of the three-echo is that three trumps 
are held of tener than four ; therefore you 
can inform your partner more frequent- 
ly of the holding of three trumps than 
you can of the holding of four or five. 
This is true ; but it does not necessarily 
follow, nor has it been demonstrated, that 
any superior advantage can be attributed 
to that circumstance. The force of that 
argument is, to a considerable extent, 
v^eakened by the fact that in a majority 
of cases a third round of trumps will be 
pla3^ed anyhow by the original leader or 
by his partner ; consequentlj^, the infor- 
mation imparted by the three-echo proves 
to be quite useless, and might as well not 
have been given. 

By using a table prepared b}^ Mr. Whit- 
feld for some of his anah^tical whist 
work, I find that in one hundred deals, 
when a player holds five trumps — which is 
the number generall}^ led from — his part- 
ner will hold three trumps thirty-one times, 
and four or five trumps twenty -three 
90 



Whist 



times ; a difference of eight, which repre- 
sents the number of times that he will be 
able to show three trumps in excess of the 
number of times that he can show four or 
five trumps in the hundred deals. 

Now it must be conceded that out of 
those thirty - one hands in which the hold- 
ing of three trumps is shown, in at least 
ei«:ht of them that showiuor — for the rea- 
son assio^ned above — mio:ht as well not 
have been made, as far as any advantage 
to be derived from it is concerned. This 
excess of eight hands can therefore be 
eliminated from the consideration of the 
case, leaving an equal number of hands for 
each holding; and there can be no ques- 
tion as to the greatly superior advantage, 
in an equal number of cases, of the four- 
echo over the three -echo, the function of 
which being, to a considerable extent, per- 
formed by the present sub-echo. 

Of course, the three - echo proves useful 
on many occasions, but the question is, 
on Avhat side does the balance of advan- 
tage lie as compared Avith the four -echo? 
91 



Whist 



The distribution of the cards most favor- 
able for the three -echo is the compara- 
tively rare one where the leader holds 
six trumps, his partner three, and each 
of the adversaries two. The weak point 
— and the case occurs quite frequently — 
is when the leader, uncertain as between 
the holding of two or four trumps by his 
partner, has to take the chances either of 
drawing one of his partner's trumps or 
allowing one or two trumps to remain in 
the adv^ersaries' hands, with perhaps disas- 
trous results in either case. 

The three-card echo is now undergoing 
the test of experience, and until a more 
favorable light is thrown on the subject I 
shall rest content with the four-card echo 
and its supplement, the sub-echo. 

The change -your- suit signal, intro- 
duced by General Dray son, and explained 
in the first part of this work, is generall}^ 
used in this country to indicate command 
of the suit, a meaning just the reverse of 
that intended by its originator. I have 
92 



Whist 



always given preference to the "change- 
your-suit" signification, because of the 
positive direction which it can give to a 
partner to do a certain thing, viz., change 
the suit, while the other method indicates 
to him a fact only — command of the suit. 
I will attempt to show how this difference 
helps the argument in favor of the Draj^- 
son method. 

There are positions w^here, although you 
do not hold the command of the suit be- 
ing led, you want it continued, as a change 
of suit might prove disadvantageous. To 
illustrate : 

8,7,6 C 

Ace, Q D 

B 

Y Z 

A 

Ace, Kg., 9 C 

9, 8 D 

A leads the king of clubs, followed by 
the ace, on which B plays the six and seven 
respectively. Although B has not the best 

93 



Whist 



club left, he does not ask his partner to 
change the suit, because if Z gets the lead 
on the third round, B is sure of two tricks 
in diamonds. Now an American player, 
to attain the same end, would have to 
make believe he held the queen of clubs, 
by giving the signal to induce his partner 
to continue the suit. Another case : 

Ace, Q D 

Q., 6, 2 C 

B 

Y Z 
A 

9, 8 D 

Ace, Kg., 9 

In this case, although B has the best 
club, he requests his partner to change the 
suit by playing the six and two of clubs 
respectively on the king and ace led by 
A, because it would be an obvious disad- 
vantage to him if he gets in on the next 
round, when he would have to lead from 
his ace, queen tenace. Again, the Amer- 
94 



Whist 



ican player would have to simulate weak- 
ness by abstaining from giving the signal, 
in order that A may change the suit. In 
both cases the Drayson B tells his part- 
ner directly what to do. The American 
B is obliged to have recourse to pretence 
in order that his partner may inferential- 
ly play to the best advantage. It is true 
that the result may be the same in either 
case, but can there be two opinions as to 
which of these methods is better fit to be- 
come a component part of the structure 
of scientific whist ? 

The discard has not escaped the improve- 
ment mania, and several new schemes have 
been invented, which are being used by 
w^hist- players according to their fancy. 
So far none of them has proved superior 
in efficacy to the old system founded on 
sound principles — that is, to discard from 
w^eakness in the absence of any indication 
of trump strength on either side, or when 
partner has shown such strength, and to 
discard from your best - protected suits 

95 



Whist 



when the adversaries are strong in trumps. 
It may turn out, however, that your part- 
ner is superior in trump power to the ad- 
versary who has led them ; in which case 
you discard from your weak suit. This 
constitutes a system which, in conjunction 
with the Drayson reverse discard, covers 
the ground better than any yet devised, 
especially if you bear in mind that the 
discard is not a command from partner to 
play any one suit, as most players seem 
to understand it. Inferentially, you get 
the information that he is weak or strong 
in some particular suit, and it is for you 
to exercise judgment as to which one it is 
better to lead, taking into consideration 
your own cards and the existing condition 
of the game generally ; not forgetting 
that, when the adversary on your right 
has the lead, your partner's discard may 
be a deceptive one, to induce a lead to his 
best suit. 

The proper play, under circumstances 
involving discards and the inferences to 
be drawn therefrom, is one of consider- 

96 



Whist 



able difficulty, and it requires an intelli- 
gent perception of the game in both part- 
ners to grapple with the situation success- 
fully. 

There is one method of discarding which 
cannot be dismissed with a mere pass- 
ing mention, because, owing probably to 
its unique character, it proves attractive 
to the average w^hist- player. I refer to 
^vhat is known as the rotary discard, the 
object of w^iich is to show one's strong 
suit by a single discard. It was first sug- 
gested, in January, 1895, Wliist^ by Mr. 
P. J. Tormey, the father of whist on the 
Pacific slope, who says that the idea Avas 
taken from a Mexican game. The end in 
view is accomplished by throwing away 
a card from a suit which conventionally 
indicates strength in another suit, follow- 
ing in a certain agreed-upon rotation. The 
usual arrangement is spades, hearts, clubs, 
and diamonds ; therefore a discard of a 
spade means that hearts is the strong suit; 
if hearts happen to be trumps, then the 
next suit, clubs, is the strong one. 
G 97 



Whist 



Of all the arbitrary conventional meth- 
ods of play this takes the palm, and on 
that account alone should not be counte- 
nanced by an}^ one who desires to see the 
game of whist maintained, as far as it can 
be accomplished, on the scientific lines on 
which it has been gradually constructed. 
Apart from this view of the question, 
which may be considered as mere senti- 
ment, I think that an examination of its 
practical side will show that there is no 
advantage in that mode of discardino;. 

An evident objection is, that the discard 
is always from weakness, which is contrary 
to the well-recoo^nized maxim of the o^ame, 
to keep guards to the high cards in A^our 
short suits when the opponents have dis- 
closed strength in trumps. The impossi- 
bility of observing that maxim under this 
system of discarding may cause the loss 
of many a trick, by enabling one of the 
adversaries to establish and bring in a 
long suit. 

Another objection is, that sometimes 
v^ou cannot discard from the indicator 
98 



Whist 



suit without probable or certain loss. Sup- 
pose you bold the ace and king, or king 
and queen, of spades, you surely will not 
discard one of them to show that hearts 
is 3^our strong suit. You are then forced 
to another discard, w^hich will lead your 
partner astray as to the constitution of 
your hand. The same difficulty will pre- 
sent itself when you are void of the indi- 
cator suit, or w^hen j^ou hold only one card 
of your partner's declared or presumed 
suit, and that card belongs to the indica- 
tor suit. All of which goes to show" that 
any rule of play intended to convey infor- 
mation not only ceases to be valuable, but 
becomes actually detrimental if it cannot 
be strictly adhered to under all circum- 
stances. 

The occasion for the use of this method 
of discarding can present itself but rarel}^, 
for the following reasons : The original 
lead of the hand must be trumps, other- 
w^ise one plain suit will have been led, and 
you can show your strong suit in the usual 
way by discarding from one or the other 
99 



Whist 



of the remaining plain suits. Then you 
must hold just one trump less than the 
number of leads which will be made con- 
secutively, otherwise you will get two dis- 
cards, and thus indicate your strong suit; 
and, also, if there is a break in the trump 
leads, a plain suit will be opened by the 
adversary, and you can show j^ours with- 
out any necessity to rotate. This is also the 
case when your partner is so long in trumps 
that he can afford to play an extra round 
for the sole purpose of giving you a sec- 
ond discard, by which he may ascertain 
your strong suit. Again, when the trump 
lead comes from the adversary, you can 
under the recognized system disclose your 
strong suit at once by a single discard; 
therefore there is no advantage for the 
" rotary " in that case. 

It is evident, therefore, that the oppor- 
tunity to make use of the rotary discard 
Avill present itself at verj^ rare intervals, 
and when it does it comes burdened always 
with one permanent source of weakness, 
and occasionally trammelled with the un- 
100 



Whist 



favorable holding already pointed out, 
which more than neutralizes any advan- 
tage claimed for it. 

For these reasons, when you are thread- 
ing the discard maze, ride not the unreli- 
able Mexican wheel. 

The discard has been put to a new use, 
as appears by the following extract from 
an article published in December, 1898, 
WJiist: ''If partner discards, whether sec- 
ond, third, or fourth in hand, a card lower 
than a five-spot, say ; he indicates his will- 
ingness to be forced, while his discard of a 
five or higher card indicates his disinclina- 
tion to use his trumps for forcing purposes." 

This device embodies another conven- 
tion, pure and simple, and on that account 
is to be deprecated ; but viewed on its 
merits, it is doubtful that it will prove ad- 
vantageous in the long-run, for, in com- 
mon with the rotary discard and many of 
the new-fangled notions, it requires what 
might be styled hands made to order " 
to insure success ; otherwise you may be 
101 



Whist 

obliged to discard a higher card than a 
four from your weak suit when you are 
anxious to ruff, or a lower card than the 
five when you desire not to be forced. A 
misfit, which might cost you dear, and 
which, perhaps, can only be avoided by 
using a card from your long suit to throw 
away, thus seriously impairing its effi- 
cacy, besides misleading your partner as 
to your best suit. Again, the mandate on 
partner is not without its dangerous side, 
especially when an adversary has the lead. 
In case you signal a desire to be forced, 
he will, of course, discontinue the suit, 
and a trump attack by the adversary on 
your left is indicated ; in the reverse case, 
the force will be given and your trump 
strength may be irretrievably impaired. 
However, players who use these signals 
claim that they are trick- winners. Ex- 
perience will show if the claim is well 
founded, or if it is, at present, based 
merely on the want of familiarity with 
the system by the opponents of the play- 
ers habitually using it. 

102 



Whist 



One thing is certain — inventions of this 
kind are knocking all the brains out of 
Whist. It was a nice question of percep- 
tion to decide when to force and when 
not to force one's partner under condi- 
tions which, on the surface, Avould not jus- 
tify the one or the other pla}^, according 
to the elementary rules which regulate the 
force. 

It is an old and sound rule in whist to 
keep the adversaries in ignorance as re- 
gards your holding in their strong suits, 
whenever it is possible to do so without 
confusing your partner. But it seems that 
this was all wrong, for we now have an 
invention called — after its originator — the 
Street Attachment^ by which very precise 
information is given to an opponent con- 
cerning his strong suit. My opinion of 
this device can be best expressed by the 
declaration that my heart warms to the 
adversary who kindly informs me, in ac- 
cordance with that method, that he holds 
three cards of my suit without an honor, 
103 



Whist 



by playing the middle, then highest, fol- 
lowed by lowest of the suit; or that he 
holds four, by playing lowest, then a 
higher card ; or that he has the ability to 
w^in the third round, either with an honor 
or with a trump, by playing any card fol- 
lowed by a lower one. 

Those who practise the Street Attach- 
ment are beo^innino: to realize the dan- 
gers attending the play, w^hich they are 
tiwing to avoid by taking refuge behind 
false cards, with the difficult task on their 
hands of informing their partners that 
they have sought cover, and at the same 
time of concealing that fact from their op- 
ponents. 

Another serious objection to the inven- 
tion is that any one using it cannot call 
for trumjDS in the adversary's suit, as the 
play of unnecessarily high cards is used 
to impart the information regarding the 
third round, explained above. 

There are other fads, too numerous and 
insio:nificant to review. As retT;'ards one of 

m 



Whist 



the latest of them, however, I must re- 
mark that the climax of conventionalism 
in whist appears to have been reached by 
that school of players who never lead the 
ace Avith four others — not the king or 
both queen and knave — unless they hold 
a singleton in another sr.it! 

MODIFIED LEADS 

Another American innovation is the 
lead of fourth -best from suits of five or 
more cards headed by the ace, but not 
containing the king or both queen and 
knave. This was first practised by the 
celebrated Minneapolis Duplicate Whist 
team, and upon their high recommenda- 
tion as an improvement on the old lead 
of the ace it has been extensively tried, 
and has found many adherents. 

Public opinion became so pronounced 
in its favor as to impel Mr. Whit f eld to 
investigate the matter. After a most ex- 
haustive analysis of the case of the ace 
with four small ones, published in nine 
Field articles in 1894, and which involved, 

105 



Whist 



among other things, the consideration of 
ten different factors which affect the prob- 
lem, he worked out a slight advantage of 
seven tricks in a thousand deals in favor 
of the lead of the small card. 

Mr.Whitfeld concluded his examination 
with some instructive comments which my 
readers will no doubt prefer to have in 
his own words. The}^ are as follows : 

This balance is extremelv small, and 
it must further be pointed out that the 
indirect gains are chiefly connected with 
the establishment of the suit, and will not 
often make the difference of the odd trick, 
which counts double. I regret that I can- 
not arrive at a more conclusive opinion, 
but with strict impartiality I cannot state 
the case more definitely than as follows : 
By leading a small card the player in- 
curs a very small probable loss, in re- 
turn for which, by retaining the ace, he 
has more command over the course of 
pla}^ of the hand, resulting in a better 
chance of bringing in his long suit and a 
decreased chance of the adversaries doing 
106 



Whist 



so ; and that, subject to certain conditions, 
this advantage of keeping the command 
will just compensate him for the small 
risk of losing a trick through not leading 
the ace. One of the conditions is that the 
hand should be played early in the game, 
so that the chance of establishing the suit 
is an important factor. Late in the game, 
when only a few points are required to 
win or save it, it is of more importance to 
make tricks early ; it is then better to lead 
the ace than to play a waiting game, giv- 
ing a better chance of bringing in a suit. 
The player must have a good partner, who 
will assist him bv returnino' the suit in- 
stead of opening a suit of his own of mod- 
erate strength. Further, he must be a 
good pla\"er himself, able to profit by the 
command of the suit. It is often a true 
instinct which prompts bad players to 
make tricks early. 

There are circumstances in which the 
fourth-best can certainly be led with ad- 
vantage, viz., when the leader has good 
strength in trumps, but is not suflBciently 

107 



Whist 



strong to justify an original trump lead. 
It is then better to lead the small card, 
partly because the plaj^er is more likely to 
obtain the lead at a later stage, when a 
trump lead may be desirable ; parth^ be- 
cause leading two rounds of the suit at 
once is more likely to give the adversaries 
a chance of ruffing the suit. 

" To sum up the case, though a small 
card can be led early in the game, and, 
with a good partner, without probable 
loss, and under some circumstances with 
advantage, yet there cannot be laid down 
a general law in favor of the lead of the 
fourth-best ; and in advanced stages of the 
score the lead of the ace must be ad- 
hered to. 

I may add a word on the question of 
the lead from ace, queen, with five in suit. 
On the whole, the arguments are rather 
stronger for the lead of the ace. There 
is no danger of giving the complete com- 
mand of the suit to the adversaries, and 
if the third hand plays the king to the 
ace the loss is not so great. On the other 

108 



Whist 



hand, the suit being stronger and more 
likely to be established, there is a greater 
advantao-e in beino; able to obtain the lead 
on the second round, as Avill be the case 
when a small card is led. I think that 
with this combination also a small card 
should be led when the player is strong in 
trumps. 

1 think it may be said generally of the 
leads from a suit headed by the ace with- 
out the king, or both queen and knave, 
that though Avith a certain class of hands 
a small card may be led with advantage, 
under most circumstances the better lead 
is the ace." 

The result of Mr. Whitfeld's arduous 
labor does not sustain the claim made by 
American plaj^ers of a decided advantage 
consequent upon the lead of the fourth- 
best ; for, according to him, it is about an 
even thing between the two lines of play. 
This may be due to the fact that the only 
consideration he gave to the case of an 
honor being held with the ace was what is 
contained in the few lines quoted above in 
109 



Whist 



regard to the holding of the queen ; for he 
had only undertaken to examine the case 
of the ace with four small cards. Conse- 
quently he did not look into the question 
of the possible gainful finesses which oc- 
casionally present themselves when the 
queen or the knave is held with the ace. 

Suppose the cards to lie as in the foUow- 
ino; diaOTams : 

9, V 



B 




Y 


Z 


A 




Ace, Q, 


8,3,2 


Kg., 


9 


B 




Y 


Z 


A 





Ace, Kn., 8, 8, 2 



Here, as can be readily seen, are finess- 
ing positions where, with trump strength, 
A and B may possibly make a gain of 
four tricks in one case and of three tricks 
110 



Whist 



in the other; and when it is borne in mind 
that the American player, if strong in 
trumps, leads the fourth -best of his ace 
suit as readily with six or seven in suit as 
he does with five, the possible gain may 
be still greater. 

Even without an honor accompanying 
the ace there are finessing positions which 
might yield the same advantage ; for ex- 
ample, take the following cases : 



Q., V 



9, 6, 5 


B 

Y 

A 


Z 




Ace, 10, 8 


, 8, 2 




Q., 10, 


5 


7,6 


B 

Y 

A 


Z 




Ace, 9, 8, 


3,2 



These positions, favorable to the lead 
of the fourth -best, do occur sometimes; 
111 



Whist 



still Mr. Whitfeld appears not to have 
given them due weight, for he disposes of 
the finesse question with the following 
remarks : 

" I have taken no account of finessing, 
first, because the balance of gains and 
losses from finessing is usually very small ; 
secondly, because this small balance will 
probably be nearly equal in the two meth- 
ods of pla}^, and the balance of the bal- 
ances, so to speak, may be expected to be 
extremely small." 

The first part of this proposition is cor- 
rect when the balance is between one trick 
lost or gained hy the finesse ; but the case 
is different when the successful finesse 
results not only in the capture of the 
second-best card, but at the same time 
establishes and brings in the suit — a pos- 
sible gain of several tricks as against the 
loss of probably but one trick in case the 
cards do not lie favorably for the finesse. 
As to the second proposition, I cannot 
find, after the lead of the ace, positions for 
finessing comparable as to possible favor- 

113 



Whist 



able results to those which may occur 
when the lead is the fourth-best. 

There is another case favorable to the 
lead of the small card — it is when the 
player, having no card of re-entry except- 
ing the ace, passes the second round. Ex- 
amine this position : 



Kg., 7, 4 




Kii., 10 



Ace, 8, 6, 5, 3 



A leads the five, Y plays the four, B 
the queen, Z the ten ; B now leads trumps, 
and succeeds in exhausting them from all 
the hands. B gets in and leads the nine ; 
Z plays the knave ; A passes the trick, as 
the two is marked in B's hand and king 
is guarded on his left. When B obtains 
the lead again, he plays the two, and A 
gets his two weaklings home, under the 
protecting wing of his ace. With the 
above distribution of the cards, four tricks 

H 113 



Whist 



are made in the suit by A B under the 
assumed circumstances of the case. If the 
ace is led, only two can be taken by them, 
and probably only one, for the queen will 
be lost if Y forces his partner. Although 
such positions as the above occur very 
rarely, and the finessing positions present 
themselves with but limited frequenc}^, as 
experience demonstrates, still they are 
factors not to be imored in determinino^ 
the balance of advantage in the two leads. 

I have made these points not without 
misgivings, for I am aware that Mr. Whit- 
feld usually goes to the bottom of any 
question wliich he investigates, and he 
may bring me up with a round turn by 
pointing out that all the cases suggested 
by me are covered, directly or indirectly, 
by his analysis. 

Admitting, however, that it is about an 
even thing between the two leads, as Mr. 
Whitfeld makes it out, I give preference 
to the fourth-best lead generally, because 
of its affording greater scope for interest- 
ing play, as explained above; such as finess- 
114 



Whist 



ing or passing the second trick, as the 
best or only chance of bringing in the re- 
mainder of the long suit ^vith the ace on 
the third round. 

Another new lead which is now much 
in vogue is the opening of a long suit from 
the top, w^hen not containing an honor. 
The advantage for this mode of play is 
that if your partner, from his holding and 
from the fall of the cards, recognizes the 
nature of the lead, he Avill be prevented 
from sacrificino; a f>:ood card. For in- 
stance, you lead the nine, the highest of 
a four-card suit, and your partner, hav- 
ing the king, queen, and ten, holds the 
trick with the queen. He sees that you 
have led from the top of nothing," as it 
is called, and does not send his king to 
slaughter. 

The objections to the play are : 
First. If partner, from your lead, reads 
3^our suit as the orthodox strong one, he 
will venture on a trump lead, which may 
turn out badly, or, being uncertain, he is 

115 



Whist 



deterred from making an otherwise judi- 
cious trump attack when the lead happens 
to be from a long, strong suit. 

Second. The disclosing of weakness in 
the long suit — always considered a disad- 
vantage — directs the riglit-hand adversary 
to keep finessing. 

Third. The suit may ultimately be com- 
manded by a card in adverse hand lower 
than the top card led originalh^ 

It looks as if the disadvantage attend- 
ing the new play outweighs the advan- 
tage. 

Another innovation which has met with 
favor, and which, I regret to say, has re- 
ceived the endorsement of the last ^hist 
Congress, is the lead of the ten from 
queen, knave, ten, instead of the queen 
as usually practised. The object of the 
change is to avoid the dual signification 
of the queen lead from the ascending and 
descending sequences. This is in the di- 
rection of simplification, which is in itself 
desirable ; but, as a consequence of the 

116 



Whist 



change, the lead of the ten had to be aban- 
doned from the king, knave, ten combi- 
nation, and the fom-th-best substituted; 
otherwise ^ye woukl have two ten leads 
instead of two queen leads, and nothing 
would be gained in the wa}^ of simplifica- 
tion. 

In my opinion the lead of the fourtli- 
best from king, knave, ten, in plain suits, 
is a trick-loser, and is not compensated for 
by any presumed advantage resulting from 
the suppression of one of the queen leads; 
for its present dual signification is very 
seldom a source of embarrassment to the 
leader's partner, as the holding of the 
king or knave or ten by him, or the fall 
of one of these tell-tale cards from the 
adversaries' hands on the first round, will 
disclose the holdino^ led from. Failino^ 
this, the second lead from the suit will set- 
tle that point ; information which comes 
in ample time for any useful purpose, for 
the showing of five cards by the first lead, 
except when knave is led, is of no prac- 
tical advantaf>:e, because the unblockino: 

117 



Whist 



by partner is always begun on the first 
round. 

Tlie reason for the century-old lead of 
the ten, from king, knave, ten, is to pre- 
vent an adversary from taking the first 
trick with a card lower than the ten, and 
the certainty of commanding the suit on 
the third round. But the greatest advan- 
tage resulting from the lead is the dis- 
closure of the holding of such strong cards 
as the king and knave, which may induce 
partner to make a successful trump at- 
tack, w^hich he w^ould not attempt when 
a fourth-best from the leader w^ould have 
left him in ignorance as to the strength 
of the latter's suit. I have in mind many 
instances where, holding ace, queen, one 
or more others, I have taken my partner's 
ten and led trumps, with strength in them, 
and made great scores. 

The champions of these two leads ad- 
vance the argument of " too much infor- 
mation" against the present ten lead, by 
w^hich second hand, with ace, queen, and 
small, or wuth the queen and one other, is 
118 



Whist 



directed to cover the ten led with the 
queen. 

This advantage to second player is not 
so great as might be imagined ; with queen, 
one small, a trick is generally gained if 
fourth hand has the ace ; yet if fourth-best 
is led, the queen singly guarded may still 
make against the finesse of the knave. 
The information redounds also to the ben- 
efit of the leader, for if his ten is not cov- 
ered by the queen he has an advantageous 
finesse of the knave, in case he is strong 
enough in trumps to hazard it, for he 
knows that he cannot possibly capture the 
queen, if to his left, because it must have 
been at least twice guarded originally. 

In some occasional positions he will 
have a sure finesse. To illustrate : 



Ace, 8, 5 





B 






Y 


A 


Z 


Q., 9, 2 



Kg., Kn., 10, 7, 4, 3 
119 



Whist 



First trick — ten, six, ace, two. 

Second trick — B returns eight, Z plays 
the nine; A now knows — bar a possible 
call for trumps by Y — that Z has the 
queen, because if Y had it he would have 
covered the ten on the first round, with 
only two in suit ; so he finesses the knave, 
remaining with the full control of his 
suit. 

As to the case of ace, queen, and small 
in second hand, both of those high cards 
would make anyhow if third player has 
three cards of the suit ; and in many cases 
it is a positive advantage to the leader to 
have the queen and ace played on the first 
two rounds, leaving him with his suit un- 
obstructed. 

As my long experience has convinced 
me that the ten is the best lead from the 
king, knave, ten combination, I give my 
unqualified adherence to it. 

In trumps, however, with only four in 
suit, I consider the low card the better 
lead generally, as it may be of great im- 
portance to command the fourth round, 
120 



Whist 



and thus have the power to extract the 
last trumps from the opponents. 

As a consequence of the foregoing views, 
I cannot endorse the lead of ten from 
queen, knave, ten, as it is susceptible of 
demonstration that the two ten leads can- 
not coexist without creating confusion. 

As far back as September, 1867, Mo- 
gul" advocated in the Field the lead of 
the ten from queen, knave, ten, and two 
or more small ones. The American player 
leads the ten also, with four in suit as well 
as with more — showing number on the 
second round in the usual way, with the 
indifferent high cards. 

Owing to the short time which has 
elapsed since the introduction of the 
fourth -best lead from the king, knave, 
ten combination, there has been no real 
test of the comparative merits of the two 
leads, nor will there ever be any, if every- 
body takes to leading the fourth-best. 

It has been proposed to change the lead, 
from the ace, king, queen, knave, five or 

121 



Whist 



more in suit, from the knave to the queen, 
so that the lead of the knave would al- 
waj^s deny the ace. In my opinion, the 
change would not be advisable, because, 
under the present system, the partner of 
the leader has the advantage of knowing 
after the first round of the suit that the 
latter holds the ace, w^hile the adversaries 
cannot place it ; and it cannot be gainsaid 
that, at whist, anj^ line of play is advan- 
tageous which gives information to part- 
ner to the exclusion of the opponents. 
Now make the knave deny the ace, and 
you lose the advantage and transfer it, as 
it were, to the other side. Suppose, for 
example, that one of the adversaries trumps 
the suit ; the ace being marked with lead- 
er's partner, the ruff can be safely con- 
tinued as long as the ace does not fall. 

The only advantage which has been 
claimed for the proposed change is that 
leader's partner will know if the ace is 
held back. This knowledge would be of 
very little practical value to him ; it is the 
leader to whom it might prove of some 



Whist 



importance, and he cannot know. Be- 
sides, this line of play is seldom resorted 
to on original leads from plain suits, as 
it is not considered good whist. 

The advantage of the proposed change 
being practically nil^ and the disadvantage 
being marked, I see no reason for aban- 
doning the present lead of the knave, be- 
cause the ace is included in the sequence. 

XEW SYSTEMS 

American inventive genius soon tired of 
wasting its resources on the minor details 
of the game, and nothing short of the 
creation of new S3^stems could now sat- 
isfy its vaulting ambition. The result is 
systems sufficient to gratify all tastes. 
Among the most notable are the Howell 
system, the short-suit sj^stem, and the va- 
rious modified derivatives from the latter. 
A full definition and explanation of them 
all would fill a volume, the perusal of 
which w^ould probably leave the reader 
in a state of mind bordering on distrac- 
tion if he attempted to master their arbi- 
123 



* 



Whist 

trary rules, to reconcile their contradic- 
tions, and to harmonize their clashing 
conventions. 

It is safe to predict that the Hovrell 
sj^stem, as well as others based on purely 
arbitrary conventions, must eventualh^ go 
to the Trail. Among the many good rea- 
sons for this is the fact that, to work them 
successfully, one must hold hands made to 
order. In systems where every card led 
originally is invested with a certain defi- 
nite meaning regarding the suit led from 
and the general character of the leader's 
hand, and the particular card which should 
convey that information is lacking from 
the hand, another card must be led which, 
having a totally different signification, will 
deceive the partner, with the consequent 
loss of tricks, and, worse still, the loss of 
confidence in the whole disjointed contri- 
vance. 

The short-suit system, called by its ex- 
ponents the " common-sense game,'' to dis- 
tinguish it, I presume, from the fool game 

12-i 



Whist 



of Clay, Pole, Cavendish, Drayson, Ames, 
Hamilton, ^York, Coffin, and their numer- 
ous followers, requires more than a pass- 
ing notice, because many players have 
joined the ranks of the common -sense 
players, allured by specious arguments and 
by the parading of deals specially gotten 
up or actually played, in which gains were 
made over the long -suit openings, owing 
to the favorable position of the cards or 
to the bad play of the other side. 

When this system was inaugurated it 
was understood that the original lead of 
the hand was always to be from a short 
suit, including a singleton; but this kind 
of game did not w^ork w^ell, and singletons 
and weak two-card suits were abandoned, 
and leads were confined to supporting 
cards" of a certain rank. Then came a 
partial back-down — a long-suit lead with 
trump strength and cards of re-entry, or 
a strengthening card from your long suit, 
if too weak to play the long-suit game; 
otherwise lead the best card of your short 
suit, provided it is above an eight and not 

125 



Whist 



higher than a queen : all these plays in 
preference to leading from a suit in which 
you hold either a major or a minor tenace. 

Still the short -suiters wandered in the 
cheerless desert of uncertainty, and when 
they called on their Moses to lead them to 
the promised land of system he frankly 
admitted that the land was not yet in 
sight, but w^ould no doubt be reached in 
due course of time. 

The hope thus held out to his followers 
by Mr. Foster has evidently proved delu- 
sive, for the methods of common - sense 
play as defined by him can scarcely be con- 
sidered a system. He says : " Common- 
sense players use no number showing leads, 
no trump signals, no echoes, no four-sig- 
nals, no calls through honors turned, no 
directive discards, nor anything of that 
kind. They confine themselves to the very 
simple principle of playing strong suits 
up and w^eak suits down. IsTone of their 
plays have any occult meaning, but they 
simply indicate that they are managing 
their hands according to their lights. 

126 



Whist 



Their partners are not directed by any 
private or conventional signals, and are 
free to infer what they can from the cards 
played by their partners and the apparent 
designs of their adversaries." To the be- 
ginner the charming simplicity of this un- 
hampered "Chacun pour soi et Dieu pour 
tons" style of game must be very capti- 
vating. 

Yet this informative game, thus repu- 
diated by the short- suiters, has always 
been admitted to be the most interesting 
one, because better than any other it lays 
the foundation for the play of fine strokes 
at the end of a hand. Besides, in this 
game you have the advantage of being 
able to withhold information w^henever 
you may deem it expedient to do so — for 
example, when the hand has developed 
sufficiently to indicate that a dark game 
is advisable, or w^hen your partner dis- 
closes a very poor hand, and especially 
when you discover that he is not familiar 
with the recognized rules of play. Mat- 
thews puts the latter contingency in this 
127 



Whist 



wise: "It would be of no advantage to 
speak French like Voltaire if you live with 
persons w^ho are ignorant of the language." 

Deprive the game of its informator}^ 
character and it immediately loses its 
chief attraction, w^hich lies in the striv- 
ing of each player to make the most of 
the information imparted alike by friend 
and foe. For my part, I am free to admit 
that I would not care to play whist had I 
no other alternative than to take part in 
a game w^here all the participants would 
have to angle for tricks at hap-hazard in 
the dark waters of concealment, purposely 
made murky by this cuttle-fish school of 
players. 

That Mr. Foster knew what he was 
talking about when he said that there was 
no system for short -suit play is proved 
by the fact that Messrs. Howell, Street, 
Starnes, and Keiley, who have tried their 
hands at it, have each laid down rules of 
play totall}'' at variance with those advo- 
cated by the others, leaving the short- 
suiters in a greater quandary than ever. 
128 



Whist 



The perusal of the writings of these 
authors, with all their new-fangled whims 
and arbitrary rules, which, clashing with 
the old ones, necessitates the abandonment 
of the latter, bring the saddening convic- 
tion to the mind that the science of Whist 
is retrograding; instead of evolution we 
have involution, which, if persisted in, will 
gradually bring us back to " Whisk and 
Swabbers," and from that to the proto- 
plastic epoch of the game. 

In my opinion it is susceptible of dem- 
onstration that the original lead of a sup- 
porting card must result in loss in a certain 
percentage of cases. It is admitted that 
an established suit is a power in the game 
when accompanied by trump strength or 
cards of re-entry; it cannot be denied 
that a supporting card helps materially to 
establish a suit ; there are two adversaries 
to one partner, therefore the chances are 
two to one that such a card, as an original 
lead of a hand, will benefit the opponents. 
But you will answer that the test by act- 
ual play does not show any such great 



Whist 

preponderance of advantage. The reason 
is plain — Duplicate Whist has established 
the fact that some classes of hands are 
good for a certain number of tricks, no 
matter how opened, provided the play is 
otherwise good. There are other cases — 
outside of the contingency of the estab- 
lishment of a suit — where^ owing to the 
position of the cards, sometimes the short- 
suit lead and sometimes the long-suit lead 
will result in a gain ; but we can assume 
that this will average in the long-run, for 
each kind of lead. Again, in some hands 
the supporting card does not help to es- 
tablish a suit, and when, in other cases, the 
suit is established as a consequence of the 
lead, the favored player cannot bring it 
in, for lack of strength in trumps or cards 
of re-entry; but in a certain number of 
hands he will have the necessary power 
to bring the established suit into play, and 
the two-to-one odds will then tell against 
the lead. The percentage of these cases 
must necessarily be small, but whatever 
it may be, it is a constant factor of loss 
130 



Whist 



for the short -suit opening as compared 
with the long- suit one, which, if it does 
not result in the bringiug-in of the long 
cards of the suit, works no harm by help- 
ing to establish a long suit of the adver- 
saries. 

It is probable that this percentage of 
losing positions has made itself felt in the 
four or five years during which short-suit- 
ism has been running its course, for it is a 
patent fact that the interest it once evoked 
is on the wane, and many short-suiters are 
returning to the practice of the orthodox 
game. 

It is truly a relief to turn from the in- 
congruities of these mongrel systems and 
empirical rules of play to the considera- 
tion of the lono;-suit scientific Q-snne of 
whist, of which Cavendish was the latest 
and greatest exponent. Here, at least, 
we have a game founded on reason, prin- 
ciples, extension of principles, mathemat- 
ical calculations, and the accumulated ex- 
perience of a century and a half — all 

131 



Whist 



brought into harmonious action by the 
aid of certain conventions in accordance 
with and suggested by principle, witli 
the consequent development of a logical 
system of pky easy to understand and 
not difficult to follow. 

If a beginner should ask why certain 
leads or plays are made he will get a 
satisfactory answer. For instance, should 
he inquire why the fourth-best is led where 
a long suit is opened with a low card, he 
will be told, Because every long suit is 
treated as a four-card suit in order to re- 
tain the information convej^ed by the lead 
of the lowest of a four-card suit, as ex- 
plained in the first part of this work. 
Wh}^, with two cards remaining of part- 
ner's suit after the first round — say the 
four and two — you return the four in 
preference to the two? Because you are 
extending to the small cards the rule 
which teaches to strengthen and unblock 
partner's suit b}^ playing out your high 
card. Why, Avith the combination of 
king, queen, Icnave, and one or more 
132 



Whist 



small, you lead the king with one other 
and the knave with more than one ? Be- 
cause in the latter case you want to in- 
duce your partner to play the ace on 
your knave to clear your suit, which he 
would not do if you played the king. 
Why, after the ace has been played on the 
knave, you follow with the king, holding 
five in suit, and with the queen, holding 
more than five? Because, by extending 
this system of play to the remaining high 
indifferent cards of the suit, although the 
primary reason no longer exists, you give 
valuable information to your partner as 
to the number of cards in your long suit. 
And so on — a good reason for ever}^ pl^J- 
But, in the purely arbitrary systems, if 
the learner asks. Why does the lead of a 
small card denote strength, and w^hy is it 
a demand for a trump lead from partner? 
or, Why does the lead of a six, seven, or 
eight indicate a ruffing game ? Ave answer^ 
Because we have agreed it should have that 
meaning. Why does the lead of the queen 
show the ability to win the third round ? or 
133 



Whist 



^Ylly does a low card played on adversary's 
lead followed b}" a higher card show four 
in the suit ? Because it is so nominated 
in our Avhist bond, and so on — nothing 
but prior understanding and agreement. 
As there are several systems of that kind, 
it is impossible that they can all be sound. 
The question as to which is the best has 
but little interest for the adherents of the 
lono^-suit svstem, who naturallv consider 
their game the best of all. 

Another argument of the short -suiters 
in support of their game is that it is more 
difficult to ]Aa\\ and consequently more 
interesting, than the informative long-suit 
game, which, apparentlj^, is entirely too 
easy for them. Yet when they all follow- 
ed the latter system I do not remember 
that the whist public was dazzled by nu- 
merous grand coups^ or by manj^ instances 
of trumping with the best trump to throw 
the lead with a losing one, or by playing 
the second-best card on the best, holding 
major -tenace over minor -tenace on the 
right as the only chance of winning three 
134 



Whist 



out of the last four tricks, or many brill- 
iant plays to the score, etc. It is a mor- 
tifj^ing admission to make, but we long- 
suiters cannot deny that the game, which 
is too easy for the short-suiters, taxes our 
brains to no small extent. 

Having alluded to playing to the score, 
a few remarks on that subject may not 
be amiss, because many of those who play 
duplicate whist exclusively do not seem 
to realize the fall significance of the term, 
imagining that the play consists merely 
in a backward game when the score is 
advanced, or in risking the loss of a trick 
to win the game, when otherwise a score 
of six would be a certainty. In its broad- 
er sense, playing to the score means that, 
when 3^ou require a certain number or all 
of the remaining tricks to save the game, 
the play must be shaped to that end. 
There is no incident in a game of whist 
more interesting to a player than when he 
is faced with a problem of that kind, and 
he has but one course to pursue in order 

135 



Whist 



to solve it. He generally knows the 
position of some of the cards, and he 
must assume that the others lie favora- 
bly for the desired result, and then play 
accordingly, all usual rules being disre- 
garded. This point cannot be better illus- 
trated than by quoting James Clay, the 
foremost English whist-player of his day, 
who makes it very clear to the beginner. 
He says : 

" Let me take a tolerably obvious ex- 
ample, because it is obvious and fresh in 
my memory, and not as being an unusu- 
ally fine coicp, for any good player would 
have played in the same way. 

" There are five cards in hand and four 
trumps only remain in. Of those I hold 
the tenace (call it ace and queen), and I 
know that my right-hand adversary holds 
the remaining two (call them king and 
knave). He also holds a thirteenth card 
of another suit. My remaining cards are 
the ace, king, and a small card of another 
suit; I know nothing more of the position 
of the cards, but in order to save the 

136 



Whist 



game it is necessary for me to make every 
trick, and it is my lead. 

" Place these cards before you and you 
will see that if I play, in the ordinarj^ 
way, my ace and king, I have lost the 
game, as my right-hand adversary must 
make one trick. 

" There is but one chance for me, viz.: 
to put my partner into the lead, when, if 
he has the best cards of the fourth suit, I 
shall throw on them my ace and king of 
diamonds, remaining with my tenace of 
trumps ; or if my right-hand adversary 
should trump this fourth suit, I overtrump 
him, draw his other trump, and make m}^ 
ace and king, in either case winning the 
required five tricks. 

I therefore play my small card. This 
coup came off, my partner made the trick 
and held the two best cards in the fourth 
suit, which he very properly played. The 
combination is, comparatively, with many 
others, a simple one, yet it serves to illus- 
trate my meaning, as it necessitated, as 
the one single possibility of saving the 

137 



Whist 



game, the favorable event of four chances. 
My partner must be able to win the first 
trick ; he must hold at least two winning 
cards in the fourth suit, and m}^ right-hand 
adversary must hold at least one of my suit." 

Clav, furthermore, savs : The success 
of 3^our acuteness may not be frequent, for 
in an intricate combination the chances 
will, of course, generally defeat you, and 
j^ou may feel that, after all 3'our pains, 
the difference between a merely good 
pLayer and yourself is practically very 
slight ; but when the position of the cards 
favor you, and the chance which you have 
foreseen comes off, you will be well repaid 
by a pleasant recollection of your skill for 
many a long day, and by the conscious- 
ness that you take rank among the mas- 
ters of the game." 

This ver}" interesting feature of playing 
to the score is lacking in duplicate whist ; 
hence, in that game, the opportunity for 
fine play does not present itself so often 
as in ordinary or ''straight" whist, as it 
is generally called. 

138 



Whist 



My advice to beginners is to learn the 
long-suit, Anglo-American Leads system in 
all its details, including the play of second 
and third hands, and the other rules of 
the game ; ay hen pretty well grounded in 
these, practise with players who follow the 
same system, confinino; yourself at first to 
the observation of the main features of 
the game. You will haye, as the original 
leader, an easy rule for openingyour hand, 
for you must always hold a suit of at least 
four cards, and you will find out that the 
small cards of an established suit are just 
as effectiye for trick-making, when accom- 
panied with trump strength, as aces and 
kings, and that they are, moreover, potent 
instruments for forcing adverse trumps. 

You will soon realize the fact that, from 
the constitution of your hand, you will 
probably not be able to bring in 3^our long 
suit, if established ; still you will have the 
satisfaction of knowing that 3"ou have 
opened v^our hand in a manner less liable 
to entail loss than any other you could 
have selected. You will learn, too, that 
139 



Whist 



it is sometimes better to lead from a short 
strono; suit than a verv weak lono; suit ; 
but you are not a short-suiter for all that, 
for such exceptions are noted by all writ- 
ers who advocate the long -suit system. 
After practising in this way for some time, 
if you have any aptitude for the game, 
you will be a very acceptable partner for 
more advanced players, who, seeing your 
willingness to learn, will give you all the 
assistance at their command. 

When you find that you are pitted 
against short -suiters, cover, second hand, 
the supporting card led, and, unless you 
have a powerful suit to open, generally 
return the suits of the adversaries, for it 
is part of their strategy to lie in ambush 
in the other suits, behind tenaces — major, 
minor, double, simple, or potential; the 
latter, especially, has a particular charm 
for the short-suiter, who hangs on to his 
potential, losing tricks, until he is at last 
forced to lead from it, and all his bottled- 
up potentiality ends in a harmless little 
fizz. If your adversaries are followers of 
140 



Whist 



Howell, and of other conventionalists, you 
must meet them on their own ground, 
which necessitates, however, the arduous 
task of learning their various conflicting 
methods. But, under all circumstances, 
open your long, strong suit w^hen yon 
have the lead of the liand. 

This multiplicity of systems and innova- 
tions tends greatly to destroy the interest 
in w^iist, as it discourages those w^ho de- 
sire to learn the game, and imposes an 
additional and heavy burden on teams 
^vho engage in the contests for trophies, 
w^io must become thoroughly familiar 
with all the various methods of their op- 
ponents ; otherwise, those methods would, 
for the nonce, be equivalent to private con- 
ventions between the players using them, 
who would thereby obtain decisive advan- 
tages over their adversaries. 

The experimental stage through Avhich 
whist is now passing in this country ac- 
counts for its present chaotic state. The 
improvement mania was sure to come, and 
141 



Whist 



it is our misfortune that it came in our 
time, spoiling our enjoyment of the game; 
but the worst is now probably over, be- 
cause the field has apparently been thor- 
oughly exploited. As experience in actual 
play increases, it becomes more evident 
every day that the interest in these novel- 
ties is declining, and it is but a question 
of time when, with a very few exceptions, 
they will be relegated to the limbo where 
many other whist fads and hobbies are 
now quietly resting. 



part llllir 

Anglo-American Leads 



WHEEE no distinction is made, the 
leads are the same in plain suits 
and in trumps. 
Number in suit means original number. 

Ace, King, Queen, Knave 

With four in suit, lead king, then 
knave. 

With five in suit, lead knave, then ace. 

With six in suit, lead knave, then king. 

With more than six in suit, lead knave, 
then queen. 

If knave wins, partner can generally 
credit you with the ace, besides the 
king and queen, as ja good plaj^er, second 
hand, will cover the knave with the 
ace. ^ 

This exceptional combination of high 
indifferent cards allows you to show a 
greater number in suit than any other. 

K 145 



Whist 



Ace, King, Queen 

With four in suit, lead king, then queen. 
"With five in suit, lead queen, then 
ace. 

With more than five in suit, lead queen, 
then king. 

Ace, King, Knave 

With four in suit, lead king, then ace. 

With more than four in suit, lead ace, 
then king. 

In truinps^ if there is no special urgen- 
cy for two rounds, it is considered justi- 
fiable pla}", after leading king or ace, 
as the case may be, to change the suit 
and finesse the knave on the return, es- 
pecially if queen is turned up to your 
right. 

You may follow the same line of play 
in plain suits, but the question of risking 
the finesse of the knave will depend on 
the fall of the cards, or your strength in 
trumps, or 3^our possession of cards of re- 
entry in the other suits. 

146 



Whist 



Ace, King, and Small 

With four in suit, lead king, then ace. 

With more than four in suit, lead ace, 
then kino^. 

In trumps ace, then king, with five 
or more small ones ; otherwise lead fourth- 
best, unless the necessity of two rounds is 
apparent. 

Ace, Queen, Knave, Ten 

With four in suit, lead ace, then ten. 

With more than four in suit, lead ace, 
then knave. 

Lead the ten after the knave, to inform 
your partner that you still command the 
suit with the queen. 

Ace, Queen, Knave, and Small 

With four in suit, lead ace, then queen. 
With more than four in suit, lead ace, 
then knave. 

Ace, Queen, Ten, Nine 

With four or five in suit, lead nine. 
With more than five in suit, lead ace, 
then nine. 

147 



Whist 



In trumjjs^ lead nine, unless yovi have 
more than six trumps, when lead ace, 
then nine. 

Ace, Queen, Ten 

With four or five in suit, lead fourth-best. 

With more than five in suit, lead the 
ace, then the fourth-best, counting from 
and including the ace, which is the origi- 
nal fourth-best. 

In trumps^ lead the fourth-best, unless 
you have more than six trumps, when lead 
ace, followed as above. 

When knave is turned up to your right, 
lead queen. 

Ace, Knave, Ten, Nine 

With four or five in suit, lead nine. 
With more than five in suit, lead ace, 
then nine. 

In triim/ps^ lead nine, unless you have 
more than six trumps, when lead ace, then 
nine. 

Although these two nine leads range 
themselves under the fourth-best system^ 
148 



Whist 



they would be led in any case to force an 
honor from adverse hands. 

Ace and Small 

including all long suits headed by ace, oth- 
er than those hereinbefore enumerated. 

With four or five in suit, lead fourth-best. 

"With more than five in suit, lead ace, 
then original fourth-best. 

In trumps^ lead the fourth - best, unless 
you have more than six trumps, when lead 
ace, then original fourth-best. 

The lead in plain suits, of the fourth-best 
with the foregoing combinations headed 
by the ace, is a comparatively new depart- 
ure from the old system of leading the 
ace, and I believe is generally the better 
one, when it is the original lead of the 
hand. You should, however, be guided 
on this point by the state of the score and 
your strength in trumps and in the other 
suits. 

Even with six in suit, you may lead 
fourth-best, say, with four good trumps, 
149 



Whist 



and cards of re-entry in the other suits ; 
also depending on the state of the score, 
as you should play a conservative game 
when your score is advanced, and a for- 
ward game when the score is adverse. 

It may also be noted here that after 
you have been forced to trump and have 
opened a plain suit, headed by ace, king, or 
ace, king, queen, lead the ace first, irre- 
spective of number, otherwise your part- 
ner, if void of the suit, might trump 3^our 
king or Cjueen in order to work the cross- 
ruff. 

King, Queen, Knave, Ten 

With four in suit, lead king, then ten. 
With five in suit, lead knave, then 
king. 

With more than five in suit, lead knave, 
then queen. 

On the third round lead the ten, to 
inform your partner that you still com- 
mand the suit with the king or queen, as 
the case may be. 

150 



Whist 



King, Queen, Knave 

With four in suit, lead king, then knave. 

With five in suit, lead knave, then king. 

With more than five in suit, lead knave, 
then queen. 

If the knave wins the trick, lead next 
one of your high cards, as the ace is some- 
times held back by the opponent — espe- 
cially in trumps. If you lead a small 
card, the ten and ace may both make in 
adversaries' hands. 

King, Queen, Ten 

With four in suit, lead king. 

With more than four in suit, lead queen. 

King, Queen, and Small 

With four in suit, lead king. 

With more than four, lead queen. 

If the queen wins, then the fourth-best, 
counting from and including the queen — 
which is the fourth-best of those remain- 
ing in hand. 

In trumps^ lead the fourtli-best, unless 

151 



Whist 



you have more than six trumps — when 
lead queen, and follow as above. 

King, Knave, Ten 

Lead ten, even if one of your others is 
the nine. If the ten wins the trick, lead 
a small card after the ten ; the fourth-best 
counting from and including that card, if 
the length of the suit admits of that play. 

If the ten forces the queen, or both 
queen and ace : 

With four in suit, lead king after ten. 

With more than four in suit, lead knave 
after ten. 

If the ten forces the ace only, king must 
be led after ten. 

If you hold the nine also, and the ten 
forces an honor, lead the nine on the third 
round, to inform your partner that you 
still command the suit with the king or 
knave, as the case may be. 

T?i trumps. With four in suit, lead 
fourth-best. 

With more than four in suit, lead and 
follow as above. 

152 



Whist 



Some players lead the nine ^yhen held 
with, king, knave, ten. There is but little 
choice between the two leads. I prefer 
the ten, because it always shows king and 
knave, and limits the number of nine leads 
to two. 

King, Knave, Nine 

In trumps. If ten is turned up to your 
right, lead knave. 

King and SmaU 

including all long suits headed by the 
king, other than those hereinbefore enu- 
merated. 

Lead the fourth-best. 

Queen, Knave, Ten, Nine 

"With four in suit, lead queen, then 
nine. 

With more than four in suit, lead 
queen, then ten. 

On the third round lead the nine, to 
inform your partner that you still com- 
mand the suit with the knave. 

153 



Whist 



Queen, Knave, Ten 

With four in suit, lead queen, then knave. 
With more than four in suit, lead queen, 
then ten. 

Queen, Knave, Nine 

III trumps. If ten is turned up to j^our 
right, lead queen. 

Queen and Small 

including all long suits headed by queen, 
other than those hereinbefore enumerated. 
Lead the fourth-best. 

Knave, Ten, Nine, Eight 

With four in suit, lead eight (fourth-best), 
then knave. 

"With five in suit, lead eight, then ten. 

With more than five in suit, lead eight, 
then nine. 

Knave, Ten, Nine 

Lead the fourth-best. 
In trumps. If king or queen is turned 
up to your left, lead knave. 

154 



Whist 



Knave, Ten, Eight 

In trumjps. If nine is turned up to your 
right, lead knave. 

Knave and Small 

including all long suits headed by the 
knave, other than those hereinbefore enu- 
merated. 

Lead the fourth-best. 

Suits of Four or More Cards Without an 
Honor 

Lead the fourth-best. 

A classification of the foregoing leads, 
with reference to the number of leads for 
each card, and the conditions under which 
they are made, yields the following re- 
sults : 

Three Ace Leads 

I. With king, five or more in suit. In 
trumjps^ seven or more in suit, unless knave 
is also held, then five or more in suit. 

155 



Whist 



II. With queen, knave, any number in 
suit. 

III. With any combinations other than 
the above, six or more in suit. In tritmps, 
seven or more in suit. 

Two King Leads 

I. With ace and any other two cards. 

II. With queen and any other two cards. 

Two Queen Leads 

I. With the ascending sequence, w^ith 
or without tlie ace, five or more in suit. 
In trumps, without the ace, seven or more 
in suit, unless with the ten, then five or 
more in suit. 

II. With the descending sequence to the 
ten inclusive, four or more in suit. 

One Knave Lead 

With the ascending sequence, with or 
without the ace. 

One Ten Lead 

With king, knave, any number in suit. 
156 



Whist 



Two ITine Leads 

I. With ace, queen, ten, with or witli- 
out one small. 

II. With ace, knave, ten, with or with- 
out one small. 

In trumps^ with any number in suit not 
exceeding six. 

All Other Combinations 

The fourth-best is led. 

The learner will have perceived from 
the analj^sis of the leads, and from the 
summary of the same, that the orig- 
inal leads from all combinations of the 
cards are not so numerous, after all. As 
to the second lead, he ought generally 
to be able to determine for himself the 
card to be led when he is left with high 
indifferent cards of the suit, if only he 
bear in mind the principle involved in 
the leads from the typical combination 
of ace, queen, knave, where the queen is 
led after the ace when the suit is short, 
157 



Whist 



and where the knave is led after the ace 
when the suit is long. Therefore, the 
longer the suit, the smaller the card to be 
led on the second round, and tiie selection 
of the right card is thus made eas}^ for 
the beginner. 

My task is done. I would be better 
contented with it if a certain personal pro^ 
noun did not make itself so conspicuous 
all through it. Suppression was tried in 
vain ; it would not down. So I crave my 
reader's indulgence for this obtrusive ego- 
tist, in consideration of the earnest effort 
made to give them an insight into the 
development of American Leads, and to 
restore confidence in the long- suit game 
as played in combination with the Anglo- 
American system of leads, which, after 
all, appears to be the most satisfactory 
yet devised. 



THE END 



HAKPER'S AMEEICAN ESSAYISTS 



OTHER TIMES AXD OTHER SEASONS. By Laurence 

HUTTON. 

A LITTLE ENGLISH GALLERY. By Louise Imogen 

GCINEY. 

LITERARY AND SOCIAL SILHOUETTES. By Hjalmar 
Hjorth Boyesen. 

STUDIES OF THE STAGE. By Bkander Matthews. 

AMERICANISMS AND BRITICISMS, with Other Essays 
on Other Isms. By Brander Matthews. 

AS WE GO. By Charles Dudley Warner. With Illus- 
tration?. 

AS WE WERE SAYING. By Charles Dudley Warner. 
With Illustrations. 

FROM THE EASY CHAIR. By George William Curtis. 
FROM THE EASY CHAIR. Second Series. By George 

William Curtis. 
FROM THE EASY CHAIR. Third Series. By George 

William Curtis. 
CRITICISM AND FICTION. By William Dean Howells. 
FROM THE BOOKS OF LAURENCE HUTTON. 
CONCERNING ALL OF US. By Thomas Wentworth 

HiGGINSON. 

THE WORK OF JOHN RUSKIN. By Charles Waldstein. 

PICTURE AND TEXT. By Henry James. With Hlus- 
trations. 

With Portraits. 16mo, Cloth, $1 00 each. 



HARPER & BROTHERS, Publishers 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 

M^Any of the above works will he sent by mail, postage prepaid^ 
to any part of the United States, Canada, or Mexico, on receipt of the price. 



HAEPEE'S 
C X T E M P E A E Y ESSAYISTS 



THE PERSOXAL EQUATIOX. By Harry Thurston Pecel 
This is a volame of striking and suggestive essays on widely differ- 
ent themes. — X F. Observer. 

The themes are varied, bearing on literature, biography, politics, edu- 
cation, and other subjects claiming the attention of thoughtful people. — 
Philadelphia Telegraph. 

CERTAIN ACCEPTED HEROES, and Other Essays in Lit- 
erature and Politics. By Henry Cabot Lodge. 
Nine readable, able, and thoughtful essays on literature and bio- 
graphical subjects written at different times and now collected together. 

— Brooklyn Stxindard- Union. 

HO\Y TO TELL A STORY, and 0:her Essavs. Bv Mark 
Twain. 

It is diflScuIt to suggest a volame more likely to furnish entertain- 
ment than this splendid collection of sketches by a wellnigh inimita- 
ble author. —.V: :'' Orleans States. 

BOOK AXD HEART. Essays on Literature and Life. By 
Thomas Wentworth Higginson. 

There is in this volume a most engaging mixture of learning, anec- 
dote, and opinion, and the time spent over its pages is well spent. — 
Brooklyn Eagle. 

THE RELATIOX OF LITERATURE TO LIFE. By 

Charles Dudley Warner. 

Thoughiful. scholarly, and witty discourses, in a form convenieui 
for reference. — Springfield Bepuhlican. 

IMPRESSIOXS AXD EXPERIEXCES. By W. D. Howells. 

"^e fail to see how anyone who loves to spend the leisure moments 
of the day in the company of a strong and original mind can help sub- 
mitting to the charm of these essays. — Exarainer, X, Y. 

ASPECTS OF FICTIOX, and Other Ventures in Criticism. 
By Brander Matthews. 

Full of sound, entertaining, and illuminating criticism. — Advance, 
Chicago. 

Post Si'O, Clotli^ Ornamental^ Uncv.t Edges and Gilt Tops., 
%\ 50 eacli. 



HARPER k BROTHERS. Publishers 

NEW YORK AXD LOXDOX 

l^^Any of i'lz v; : . : . .. ' : sent by mail, postage prepaid, to 
any part of the Tr^r.: c a or Mexico, on receipt of the price. 



